[My ‘reviews’ are not strictly book reviews. I’m not trying to distill the author’s ideas down into a simpler ‘bite-sized’ piece or discuss their ‘style’. These are my thoughts after having read these books. My attempts to make sense of them, usually after several rewrites, as I work to fit them into what I already ‘know’, an attempt to make the ideas presented in this book, consistent with those which I’ve read by other authors. They include ideas not covered by this author. Rarely, if ever, can you come to an understanding from a singular perspective. This is a link to an annotated bibliography on my Blog of several of the more significant books which have  influenced me on this topic,]

Complexity theory? Do we need a theory to determine what is complex? No, that’s not what this is about. Theise’s book does not layout a system for determining what should be considered complex/complicated or not. This is a book about systems and structures in nature and how they come about. He discusses how mainstream science has fallen short in explaining this and why, the author believes, without changes in approach, we will continue to fall short. He goes on to present an alternative, or, rather, a ‘sister’ approach which can provide a previously excluded way of ‘knowing’, and in so doing, can account for the ‘gaps’. The problems are not just that this is a difficult concept to understand, but that at the most basic, quantum, level, that at which nothing can be divided smaller, where all things ‘begin’, actions and processes do not follow human logic and contemporary expectation….

I remember reading the book “The Limits to Growth” in the early ’80’s, which introduced me to ‘systems theory’, an approach which required looking at all of the parts and actions within a system, consider their relationships and how they work together, in order to understand its ‘working’. A system could be ‘modeled’, mathematically and the long complex equations run on a computer. There were generally multiple possible models to run. This gave us a degree of ‘predictive’ power, but these would always be approximations, because no model could be perfect and every situation, every starting point, would result in a somewhat different ‘answer’.  I followed this with James Gleick’s book on Chaos Theory and its ‘ability’ to explain certain types of patterns, which appear spontaneously in nature, while introducing me to the idea and maths of ‘fractals’. There were multiple  books on ecology which necessarily take a wholistic approach. James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis, published their book on Gaia Theory, a product of their collaboration which began in the 1970’s, a theory of the Earth itself functioning as a self-regulating system, as if it were a gigantic, single, organism of which we ourselves are a part. All of these were related, coming out over a short span of years. These were ‘new’ hypotheses and theories, never before seriously considered by science back then, but now being investigated, their validity, and the answers they suggest, impossible to ignore.

Science often advances this way. Seemingly radical ideas, rejected by the majority of the mainstream…until resistance worn down, their validity demonstrated through thoughtfully conducted and reviewed experimentation, the scientific community then coming around to more broadly adopt them and reshape science and our understanding. (Some argue that this ‘process’ requires some number of the old guard to literally die, younger minds being more free to consider the new.)  Margulis and Lovelock’s ideas were just too far out there for most at the time. For many, such thinking then belonged to the realm of metaphysics, or fanciful science fiction, frivolous exercises in thought and belief. Exploring these ideas, testing their validity, only became possible with the computational capacity of ever more powerful computers and an openness to branches of thought once rejected by science. ‘Game Theory’ and cybernetics played a role in all of this as well. Complexity Theory has far more capacity to explain how matter and functional systems emerge, or manifest, than mainstream science could historically. Nature, through the conditions and forces in play at any given moment, ‘drive’ the universe toward order along with the ‘creation’ of complex structures and functions, at the cost of energy spent, ‘held’ in the new structures and dissipated away as lost heat. All of countless processes linked to one another through a myriad of relationships and the feedback loops which comprise them. The universe continues to evolve, and as it does, it continuously spins off everything in it, from sub-atomic particles to human beings over time, a process which it itself is directly influenced by its evolving ‘self’.

(Obviously, we are not individually ‘birthed’ apart from our parents from some swamp of chemicals out in ‘nature’. Our individual lives are ‘set in motion’ through the process of sexual reproduction…in combination with, driven by, the creative forces in play across the universe discussed here. An egg and sperm begin the process. This process of morphogenesis and development is driven by an ‘energy’, active within and behind all things, growth, metabolism, a property of this universe. The actions described here are in a sense, taking place in the ‘background’ of all things. empowering, driving the process. Elsewhere, I have written about the role of thermodynamics in life’s processes, neither of these two, thermodynamics and complexity theory, excludes the other. As in many branches of science, complex processes are not singular events and several theories may be required to explain different aspects of them. Nature is never simple. Nothing occurs in isolation.)

Creations themselves, alter the conditions, forces and possibilities, the alternatives, going on to determine what follows.  Mass, a property which organisms possess, along with the binding energies within them and those which animate them, ‘curves’ adjacent space/time around it, deforming it, resulting in stronger or weaker gravity, as does any massive body whether a speck of dust or our Sun. Contingency, refers to a similar kind of embededness in time, the links and relationships between all things, drawing direct lines from what came before, not a singular line between any two ‘part’s, but a web of lines that connect all ‘things’ to each ‘one’ at any moment in a manner just as certain as gravity. What ‘is’ will effect what will follow. Each following moment, each successive generation all connected through relationships. It is a concept that I find popping up in everything I read these days, from cell biology, metabolism, its regulation and growth, to evolution, history, paleontology, neuroscience, consciousness and thought.

Complexity Theory is about how such structures and systems arise in nature and society, under the ‘right’ conditions, from self-ordering ‘parts’, producing actions and structures not evident in their parts alone, no matter how many parts we might examine individually. It is about how the whole becomes greater than its parts. Scientists commonly use the term ’emergence’ for this phenomenon. Complexity has become a branch of science in itself, with applications to much around us. In biology, complexity refers to the structures, relationships, systems and their ‘richness’, their dynamic stability or homeostasis, which arise naturally, emerging, unaided, seemingly without ‘effort’, certainly without direction. DNA, the coded set of ‘instructions’, within each cell and organism, is not the entire story. DNA may code for specific proteins, but it does not, can not, code for the precise timing and growth of the developing organism. It also cannot ‘explain’ what came before. It is a product of this same process, a useful ‘artifact’, a stable pattern, a ‘role’ player in cell biology, comparable to mitochondria and the other organelles, providing consistency in an organism’s reproduction, development and metabolism.

[Rupert Sheldrake, in his several books, challenged the completeness of DNA as a determiner of life in its myriad forms. He proposed, and was criticized for, the idea that pattern, exists in the universe and guides the process of development, morphogenesis, and the generative part of evolution (An extreme simplification.). His books are valuable reads with thought provoking ideas.]

Complexity brings with it the capacity to create, diversity, coherence and stability to systems and structures. In nature complex systems tend to be self supporting and, in the case of organisms, lead to the capacity to reproduce and perform self-repair. A complex system is responsive. It can absorb perturbations, fend off attacks to its integrity and health, to a limited extent, and supports vitality. To do this organisms must sense their environments and respond to changing conditions. They must contain feedback loops which actuate corrective changes, adjustments to their internal systems and behaviors, to keep them in balance, homeostasis. They must, in short, be in relationship with their surrounding world. Complexity theory describes the generative force which drives evolution, providing the mutations, the alternatives, which are then ‘selected’ naturally as described by Darwin.

Complexity is also linked to our idea of sustainability. That which is sustainable, is supported by the processes active within a larger system. It doesn’t require outside, non-integrated, inputs. All ‘things’, at every scale, are linked, in relationship. Relationship is inherent to and between all things. While valued, no single individual is more important than the ‘health’ of the system itself. Individuals die, are consumed and rot returning their component parts to the system, an essential cycling in any limited, closed, system. To not be this way puts the entire system into immediate risk. Life gains meaning and purpose through its expression, individuals through the roles they play. Value is gained through the individual’s full expression as a ‘member’ of its ‘community’, the complex system, from which it emerges, the individual and community supporting each other in this way. In nature, complexity, is an ‘emergent’ quality, a natural, and ongoing, manifestation of nature’s processes. Life, arguably the most complex of all structures/processes in nature, is ‘emergent’, ‘of’ the entire process. It is an expression of the universe not just a ‘part’ of it. We are each momentary participants in the larger process which goes far beyond us, having existed for billions of years before us and will continue for billions after. Not the center of the universe, but of it…ineffable.

Neil Theise’s little book presents big ideas. It proposes a synthesis. Theise is a medical doctor, a pathologist, who spends much of his days in a lab examining the tissue samples of the deceased and of those suffering from disease. He has studied stem cells and the interstitial tissue that lies between and connects our body’s tissues, those which are generative and restorative, aiding internal transport, engaged in ‘signaling’ between tissues and organs, thus allowing multi-cellular organisms to coordinate their astounding number of internal processes, as well as playing a role in the removal of cellular waste. In higher organisms it works with the lymph system, all of these processes occur continuously within the organism. (He has even proposed that the ‘interstitium’ is an unrecognized organ in itself dispersed through out the body.) His work has given him a lot of time to think about the questions of life. He is also a ‘student’ of quantum theory, philosophy, Zen Buddhism and other metaphysical practices. He covers a lot of ‘ground’ in this slim volume creating a coherent ‘whole’. 

Borrowing from others who study complexity, (Stuart Kauffman has authored several more technical books on this. He is central the development of this as a science. His most recent book, “A World Beyond Physics: The Emergence and Evolution of LIfe”,  from 2019, is supposed to be more accessible than some of his earlier titles I’ve read.) Neil Theise, here lays out four relatively simple ‘rules’ necessary for a complex system, rules which exist across the universe: 1), There must be sufficient numbers of interacting parts, or individuals, involved in the system. Below this number and order/structure cannot emerge, their ‘behavior’ staying that of random individuals. When numbers are too few, randomness prevails, patterns, emergent structures, behaviors and systems do not arise. When these numbers and the other rules are in effect, complexity will emerge as a product of the process. Complexity isn’t the result of simple aggregation; 

2), All parts or members must function at a ‘local’ level, without top-down direction, no over-arching grand plan or ‘global’ control. Each member/part is able to act on its own freely within the larger group or context and does so on its own behalf. This does not mean that they exist separate, entirely independent of the whole. By definition, they are in relationship with those of which they are a part and so are influenced by them and exert an influence on them. The parts tend to ‘work’ in their own best interest, adapting to the conditions when it serves them. ‘Errors’ will be made, unproductive paths found and followed, at least for a time, but the system will tend towards efficiency, self ordering, success, success tending to build upon itself. In dynamic systems, at some point, a path will begin to ‘fail’, or be less productive and such paths will be abandoned over time, as alternatives are sought out and found. Failed structures, systems and behaviors will be overwhelmed by those which are successful, unless there are impediments, imposed limits or the system itself exhausts an essential component and is unable to adapt. This is much like Adam Smith’s claim for a ‘free market’ capitalist system in his, “The Wealth of Nations”. The problem with real world economic and political systems is that they are hierarchical, are directed from the top-down. Such systems tend to be manipulated to favor particular actors, impeding and distorting the system from working freely. Without such tampering the system would tend to respond to the members of the system;

3), Negative feedback loops prevail as mentioned in ‘2’ above. Failure will encourage members, parts to again cast about for more positive alternatives. This is simply the idea of implementing  the effect of diminishing returns, as an action or behavior yields less positive results for the individuals, whatever it is, individuals within the system or structure will shift to find a more supportive state or condition. This is as true for chemistry as it is for social and biological systems. As a better ‘way’ is found, actors will tend to shift towards it, until again, there is a perceived decline in performance by the individual actors, which will begin to cause another ‘adjustment’. Given the ‘freedom’ and opportunity to change, systems will change at the individual level, thus changing the whole;

4), The system must operate within a limited range of randomness. This is absolutely essential. If limits are too rigid, members/parts will be too constrained and individuals will be unable to find positive alternatives to those no longer working. Success of individual ‘actors’ increases the likelihood that the entire system will make the ‘shift’. Too much ‘freedom’ of individual movement/performance, or lack of ‘connection’, and the system will fail to adopt positive alternatives, or when ‘found’, they are abandoned. There is a ‘sweet’ spot. This is linked back to the numbers and relationship. There must be enough randomness in the system that when change is required the system can ‘find’ a solution. Systems, as they continue ‘exploring’ alternatives, are better positioned to adopt successful structures/behaviors. Failure forces a search for alternatives and this process occurs by degrees increasing the likelihood that one is found. Healthy systems tend to avoid boom-bust cycles, as viable positive alternatives are ‘found’. Compromise any of these four requirements and failure/extinction is likely. Success, life, exists in the sweet spot. ‘Failure’ still occurs, but as long as these four requirements hold, success, complexity, prevails.

Theise delves enough into quantum theories to explain the background forces and conditions which drive this, providing the basic impetus for the process, beginning at the quantum level of sub-atomic particle movement. Everything, at this level, is in continuous motion far below our ability to directly perceive it. Such motion ceases only when temperature drops to Absolute Zero, that temperature at which all kinetic energy, movement with any velocity at all, stops. That’s −273.15 degrees Celsius, 0 Kelvin or -459.67 Fahrenheit, a temperature unimaginably lower than that within us or anywhere near us. Heat can be understood as movement, kinetic energy, at sub-, atomic and molecular levels. Warmth speeds up this random movement. We only begin to perceive this at larger scales as in fluids and the atmosphere when differentials in heat produce current, various cycling patterns and winds. Moving particles, collide, imparting some of their energy to those they strike, driven by other physical forces, electro-magnetic energy, think the sun on Earth and stars and the energies inherent in space/time itself. With this movement the countless moving parts can find themselves in ‘favorable’ relationships with others, combining or being ‘knocked’ free…continuously. Here on Earth, temperatures remain within a very narrow range, especially when one considers the extremes which exist between Absolute Zero and that found within the hottest of stars. Our temperature sets the baseline for randomness and life here. (Key to this discussed elsewhere is that narrow temperature range within which water is in its liquid state. See either of Gerald Pollack’s two books, “Cells, Gels and the Engines of LIfe” and, “The Fourth Phase of Water: Beyond Solid, Liquid & Vapor”.) All chemical reactions, all biochemical processes, occur only within a given temperature range at which atoms and particles zip about at an average rate, temperature, in a direct sense, being a sampling of the velocity of atoms/particles in a given volume. Within this range of temperatures, matter contains a level of kinetic energy, that provides the randomness needed at a molecular level for life’s many processes (more later).

Structures and systems emerge spontaneously over time, naturally, building on themselves from sub-atomic particles to atoms, to molecules, to cells, tissues and organisms, and, ultimately, argued here by the author, to consciousness itself. It isn’t ‘magic’…it also isn’t a process we humans can reproduce in a lab. Each stage of scale of development from quarks to humans has particular necessary conditions. Some of these existed only within the conditions of the first seconds of the universe’s beginnings, others in stars, others here now. All of this happened over billions of years. Earth and our particular conditions here, our sun, could not and did not emerge at the universe’s beginning. This was not through planning. It was emergence over time.

Human beings do not emerge from a ‘vat’ of chemicals, but as a result of an ordering process, a very long, series of successes and failures, from one ‘level’ to the next. Only certain combinations under particular conditions can combine and form the next. Conditions, which are not precisely repeatable. The process itself continuing on. Each tier is whole in itself. In these systems and structures, in organisms, there is a ‘holarchy’ across scales consisting of ‘sub-assemblies’ which operate as ‘wholes’, independent to a degree, but a part of and dependent on the next higher level, integrated. At the level of the individual one is not independent of others we are still of the larger community, system and universe, our relationships necessary for our continuing ‘success’. We comprise the ‘parts’ of the whole. All exist in relationship. Possibilities are limited, the building ‘blocks’ coming together in precise, predictable and limited ways, other alternatives increasingly, unlikely, improbable, the fate of any two parts or ‘sub-assemblies’ unknowable.

Parts, subunits, can’t be assembled helter-skelter and in fact can’t be ‘assembled’ at all. They are derived as whole functioning units. Life cannot be created by us ad-hoc in assembly line fashion or bespoke, for that matter. Life is ‘emergent’…not built up from parts, but rendered ‘whole’. The necessary ‘randomness’ is supplied by the energies of the system. Biomolecules self-assemble into amino acids, into long chain protein molecules, then with others, into very particular structures, tissues and organs, as particular individuals, ’expressions’ of the whole.  Along the way processes are ‘turned on and off’ as ‘needed’, key sequences of DNA activated and ‘switched off’, tissues, organs and structures, in the ‘proper’ place and proportion. Each such stage of development/morphogenesis, keying what follows next. Modifications are very limited. Relationships must be maintained within very narrow margins. What exists prepares the way for what comes next. Not all structures and combinations are possible. Chimeras ‘exist’ only in mythological worlds. Like in so many things in the universe, while ‘possible’ in our imaginations, they become ever less probable as their patterns stray from what exists. Should they emerge in this world, they fail. Those alternatives, those possibilities ‘allowed’ will be different in a different place and time.

Complexity, life, is an ‘emergent’ property of matter/energy…’complexity’, paraphrasing an overused bumper sticker, from thirty years ago, ‘happens’. The individual is of the ‘whole’ in a particular moment in time. Yes, ‘Shit happens!’ The ‘shit’, the good and bad, all result from the process. The ‘shit’, however, in a freely operating, unconstrained, system, in the universe, will over time fail and be left behind, with other ‘shit’ coming to the fore before it too is lost. ‘Shit’ will continue over time, dynamic, defined by the needs of the evolving system. It by definition will always be peripheral and will resolve over time.

Complexity arises within all types of systems, including social systems if they follow the four rules laid out above. With a computer’s computational capacity we can model relatively simple complex systems, once mathematical models have been created for them, but as their scale begins to increase, as the time period we wish to understand, moves out further into the future, the computational requirements very quickly exceed our technological capacity to ‘run’ such models. Even when we are able to, the result, can never be precisely predictive. We can determine a range of probable outcomes. With enough freedom, randomness, chaos, such systems can and do give rise to solutions, innovations and possibilities, be they in the next generation of an organism, an organization, a business or the planet itself, retaining enough of their ‘old’ form to be part of that larger functional whole. This is the nature of all things. It Is consistent with our understanding of the physics operating at the quantum scale, the tiniest possible scale. Outcomes can only be probable. Only in the abstract, controlled world, can outcomes be known precisely. Reality, at the perceivable human scale is itself imprecise, we cannot perceive what goes on behind the scene, at levels beyond our ability to detect without the aid of technology.

Theise returns several times to the example of an ant colony, each ant behaving locally, in its own interest, freely, responding to its environment, interacting with other members, searching, leaving scent trails that itself and others can detect and follow, the colony adjusting over time to changing food sources and hazards, abandoning earlier successful food trails as the source is depleted. Via individual action the colony responds and evolves as an organic whole, effectively, over time. That freedom, that randomness in the system, makes it possible to generate new ‘solutions’ as more individuals respond. The colony, consisting of thousands of individuals responds as a whole. From our perspective the individuals comprise a dynamic, shifting, whole, one which ‘behaves’ as if it ‘knows’. Follow an individual ant of a colony and that order, structure, disappears, but together, they respond as a unified, dynamic, adaptable whole as if a single, conscious, mega-organism. Too much ‘chaos’ and what is attained in one moment will be ‘undone’ in the next. Too little freedom of thought, or courage to innovate, too little freedom to form particular associations or stable chemical bonds and stagnation befouls the system, ‘progress’ is stymied, decline or failure follows. This is a common problem of ‘rigidly run’ governments and hierarchical businesses. In the world of human activities our ability to remain responsive is often hampered by our tendency to demand efficiency. We consider efficiency to be a necessary quality, stripping away that which does not work well enough…but this also stymies our ability to seek out alternatives as many such efforts will fail…they are, however, necessary all the same in any kind of vibrant and adaptable system. We have a limited ability to foresee what will be the best alternative and may in our attempt to be more efficient condemn us to poor or partial ‘solutions’. Theise does an excellent job presenting these ideas.

Main stream science and mathematics explain a lot. But any ‘method’ we might choose to examine something, will have its limitations, and the explanations derived from it will be partial. Knowledge will always be incomplete. Our understanding can become richer, fuller, when we explore utilizing a range of methods. An apple might only ever be a particular shape if we never look beyond the surface. We have analyzed them in terms of their parts, eaten and so tasted them, found the seeds within and noted those seed’s purpose. Our understanding of the apple is greatly expanded beyond its simple visual appearance.  And so all things can be rediscovered and defined from different perspectives adding to our understanding, but even then there are limits. The ‘discovery’ of quantum mechanics introduced uncertainty as fact and the idea of limits to what science and mathematics can ‘explain’.

Theise weaves together essential threads from the worlds of science, mathematics, philosophy and metaphysics, into a more complete whole, each essential to a coherent understanding. He takes the reader on a journey finishing with what is considered the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness. From what does it arise? What is it? He argues here that it emerges from the same process that gifts matter/mass its specific character and qualities, the unceasing action of creation and annihilation, occurring at a quantum level…what some term the ‘quantum foam’. 

Mass can be thought of as ‘informed’ energy, recall Einstein’s famous equation E=mc², [energy equals mass times the speed of light squared], which lead directly to our understanding that mass can be converted entirely into energy, the insight, which lead to the atomic bomb. Energy, which carries particular ‘information’, ‘informs’ its state and structure, giving mass its particular properties. Existence can then be thought of as a state of becoming, the translation of ‘idea’, information, consciousness, to a witness-able, observable, state in the now. Recall that in quantum mechanics that light exists as both a wave and a particle, but that once ‘observed’, measured, ‘collapses’, ‘becomes’ one or the other. Consciousness can be thought of as that realm of pure information, which with effort, we can tap into, and when doing so, we become ‘conscious’, aware of some part of the larger ‘Consciousness’ and universe. 

This is consistent with the idea that mass, at a quantum level, shifts continuously between existence and annihilation, from being, to ‘not’ being. Without some understanding of the theories of quantum mechanics this will feel ‘thin’, as if relying on ‘magics’. Because science does not and cannot explain everything, does not mean we discard it. It describes our reality, but is not the reality itself. It provides us with extremely useful predictive tools which, at our human scale, can be accurate to a very precise degree. Theise here argues for a blending, a recombination of traditions. 

Richard Feynman, a Nobel prize winning quantum physicist, once said, ‘nobody really understands quantum mechanics.’ It is simply unknowable in a definitive sense. Science cannot pin down the universe. Although it can come remarkably close when we don’t demand absolute precision. People are often unsettled by having to accept probabilities in place of certainties. Science has long promised us a knowable future something it can’t deliver, but it can provide us with very probable outcomes. What I have found, by leaving that ‘door’ open a little, a whole range of other possible futures and connections are available to us. Exactness, eliminates the probable movement necessary for creativity. Exactness works to lock us into a rigid now…forever, which the universe demonstrably is not. It is ‘wrong’. With the several theories of quantum mechanics combined with those of relativity and those of classical mechanics, we have an enormously accurate set of predictors of ‘events’ in the universe.,,but they do not and cannot define a definite future. 

That crack in the ‘door’, the looseness of its frame, affords us a view into the ‘world’ from a quantum perspective, at and below the scale of individual molecules, which are in continuous flux, seemingly chaotic, while at the same time capable of spinning off incredibly complex structures which comprise the knowable universe. In medicine they use the term ‘homeostasis’ to describe the endless processes which occur within the healthy cell and organism, keeping their internal conditions within very limited margins, margins in which life can operate, outside of which an organism dies. The processes are similar in effect at the next higher scale up, in which, to the degree that it can, an organism moves to better position itself for survival or even works to modify those conditions in a beneficial way. All organisms do this in their own way, sensing their surroundings and responding as they can individually, effecting the conditions for all of those around them. At the level of quanta, mass and energy are in seeming chaos, but even there, there is pattern, at a basic level, mass ‘moving’ in ‘space’, going from existence to non-existence. Solidity exists only at a human scale. At small enough scale it disappears entirely. We, all things, should instead be thought of as process…endless process. Living in the moment must be taken literally. That is the ‘magic’ of life. Solidity and stasis are a myth, which of course feels real at our human scale. Should we ignore this our daily survival would be severely challenged. Both are needed to understand the world in which we live.

The ‘idea’ of quantum mechanics is ‘foreign’ to our everyday experience, it lies far beyond the range of our individual senses, yet it helps explain the visible, seemingly stable world we live in. The inexplicable actions going on beneath our perception, obviously doesn’t tell the whole ‘story’, but it sets the essential baseline for what unfolds. One must have some grasp of Einstein’s theories of Relativity, of the equivalence of matter and energy, their convertibility, of thermodynamics and the essential nature of energy as if flows in and out of a given structure or system, its transformative power, as well as the idea of a space/time, it’s ‘existence’ as an essential element of the universe in which all things emerge and return, of its capacities to ‘link’ ‘all’ things, as a ‘carrier’ of energy, as a field in which masses, large and small, ‘bend’ it resulting in gravity, the greater the mass the more pronounced the curvature, bent space/time…truly ‘fantastical’, difficult to grasp concepts, but ‘here’, everywhere, nevertheless. We are literal creatures, our perceptions limited. We take the perceivable world as a given. It just simply is…but that’s only a piece of the whole. It is difficult to imagine that which we have no direct understanding of. How does one imagine the space/time curvature? The never ending flux of material that comprises our bodies? Our lack of solidity across time? Our existence as process? The very idea that memory exists in the past, that thought and our perceived experience is a tiny sampling of the now around us. While our perceptions and memory may seem so real, complete and accurate, they are necessarily incomplete. Approximations of moments already passed.

Science, and its partner, mathematics, rely on each other. Theise delves into philosophy, which can be thought of as a framework for understanding. With this we create ‘tools’ with which we can examine the world, and ourselves, so that we might share it. Prior to the development of the scientific method and the limits of thought, western peoples, accepted the world as a fixed, stable, entity, a literal creation of God, perfect and unchanging, for Christians accomplished over a seven day period. Later this ‘week’ of ‘creation’ was firmly anchored to a time a few thousand years ago, erroneously, by Ussher, the Archbishop of Ireland, October 22, 4004 BC, based on his biblical research alone, an easily disprovable claim, a claim independent of any foundation beyond speculation, desire and that particular person’s limited understanding of the world. It is still referenced by many conservative Christian groups. The earth’s origin, geology and the 3.5 billion year record of life here is still being pieced together, the validity of science’s ‘story’, has become solidly established. 

Prior to science people clung to a rigidly held set of beliefs, questioning these was blasphemy and those who did so were punished, not uncommonly with the loss of their lives. Over time, science began to displace this with theories that insisted on a reordering of the universe, eventually becoming impossible to ignore, the lessons and benefits of its ‘successes’, undeniable, although people tried and still do. Germ theory, Newton’s conception of gravity, his equations that lead to so many advances in understanding and technological progress built upon by so many others who followed. Resultant technological breakthroughs added to the change in momentum. Science came to dominate the thinking of rational ‘man’. Logic, mathematics, the scientific method, demanded objectivity, that observers, their biases and possible effects on the subject of their inquiry, must be kept separate, that variables must be isolated, controlled, so that the outcome of one’s experiment could be definitively known. Logic, logic became the seat of understanding.

Everything must make logical sense follow the rules. If this, then that. There was little tolerance for any equivocal findings or theories not well based in the known and proven. Over time, on several fronts, cracks in the foundation of this method began to be revealed and, like all new ideas, the proponents of such a ‘relaxation’ of the rules, met considerable resistance. Theise discusses this and how quantum mechanics, an undeniable, refutation of even the possibility of the separation between subject and object, to the solidity of the ‘real’, opened a ‘door’ for the responsible and legitimate inquiry into such questions via metaphysical pathways. He explores the devastating blow that mathematician Kurt Godel delivered concerning the limits of ‘formal logic’, unmasking unprovable assumptions science had made for decades. (This was the most difficult part of the book for me to follow.)

Theise’s book is about the origins of all things, their emergence, the rise of complexity, how thought and our approach to these questions has had to change, again. Theise does a masterful job of introducing the theory of complexity, how in the roiling countless trillions of things, their ‘freedoms’ and limits, the energies acting upon them, through the processes of complexity, life comes about, inevitably. Complexity has become a field of study unto itself which has found application in many other fields of study. ‘Order’ out of ‘chaos’…or rather, seeming chaos. This isn’t about enough ‘monkeys’ with typewriters producing works of Shakespeare. This is about pattern, capacity, limits, time, energy, the action and relationship between mass and energy, of thermodynamics, self-organizing and emergence. Out of ‘chaos’ order. The chaos of complexity is not random. Randomness, unchecked, will destroy what it creates.

Within all living cells the necessary processes proceed maintaining the organism’s homeostasis. Theise makes one claim here I haven’t seen made elsewhere, that these internal processes are largely driven by the randomness of the organism’s and its environment’s temperature, it’s internal level of kinetic energy, movement, randomness and that ATP, Adoneine Tri-Phosphate, the chemical ‘battery’ produced by mitochondria by the bazillions, are more ‘regulatory’ in their functioning, powering sensitive ‘switching’ mechanisms which directs the random motion within cells, or at least this is my take on this. His idea is entirely consistent with the randomness he discusses as occurring at the quantum scale when he writes of the birthing and annihilation of particles/matter at such tiny scalesl He frequently returns to this issue of the level of scale as they build up to, the next level, each ‘increase’ becoming more stable/fixed as they become more perceptible to us. Each scale limiting, and so ‘directing’ what can follow, ‘defining’ the realm of possibility. This is a lot to wrap my brain around.

This process births sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, cells, entire organisms, us and ultimately our consciousness, everything linked, following, supporting the process. Individuals are not essential in themselves, are different than our predecessors, although we are all dynamically connected over time, not fixed. No two of us are truly identical. All vary by degrees. An individual organism, you, me, are unique, using any time span, our tissues, cells, the biomolecules, the fungi and bacteria which are a part of us and connect us to all other things, the atoms that comprise all of these structures, in constant flux, scaled up from the ever present activity at the quantum level. The ‘building blocks’ which comprise us may be identical, but none of us are wholly identical ‘copies’ of another. We follow patterns. We are dynamic structures, processes which cease to exist when stopped in the moment, a process dependent and linked to every other. 

 

---

Theise’s presentation of the metaphysical aspects of his explanation here will be the most controversial. Consciousness, awareness, thought, everything arises from this same process. Theise argues that our brains are not the source of thought, despite what many neurobiologists and others might claim. Our brains do not generate thought and consciousness. They are instead ‘transducers’, our brains, intimately linked via our nervous systems to our bodies, which themselves are linked in relationship to everything around us, and ultimately to the universe. Our brains are an organ which arose to express our ‘being’. A physical manifestation of an ongoing emergent process. Consciousness, thought are another piece of ourselves, a further expression of the whole, inseparable from our biological bodies and the process which brought them into being. We resonate with in this moment with all of the universe/creation, in this moment. We live immersed in Consciousness, and from it draw out our own. We are particular ‘expressions’ attuned to this particular body, our genetics, our individual histories, all ‘shaping’ us, in this place and time, in this universe. Linked. Another whole ‘nested’ within an unlimited holarchy. With our bodies, we give voice to this particular being, as it exists in relationship with the universe. He writes of two ‘levels’ of ‘consciousness’, one with a little ‘c’, our personal understanding, and the all encompassing big ‘C’, Consciousness which is of the universe.

Big ‘C’ consciousness follows the same process that produces the physical and biological universe. It is another aspect of the same…a nonphysical aspect, continually building on what preceded the evolving present moment. Pattern following pattern. Complexity building on itself. Material and informational. Informational, ‘informing’, defining the expression of energy in the form of mass, of organisms, of consciousness. The Big ‘C’ consciousness can be characterized as ‘non-duality’, including all possibilities. An evolving state. Only in emergence when ‘things’ manifest do things become bounded, ‘limited’, take on a degree of certainty, like light, the photon, which possesses both the character of a particle and wave, simultaneously, before ‘collapsing’ into one or the other upon being ‘observed’, coming into being, accessible to us. Big ‘C’ consciousness ‘informs’ everything, gives it in a sense, its defining characteristics evolves over time. Big ‘C’ speaks to possibility, complexity, creativity, coherence and meaning. Belief systems such as Zen Buddhism, the Jewish Kaballah and several others suggest this. Consciousness, they argue, exists in the universe, is ‘of’ the universe, as much is are energy and matter. To the degree that we are open to it, that we seek it, it becomes more available to us. The world open to our direct observation through our perceptions is a simplification, masking its complexity, its truth. Consciousness is another aspect of the universe. As complexity increases, our connection to it, our wholeness, draws us deeper.

These are huge ideas. Likely, if you haven’t been a bit of science nerd, you’re unfamiliar with at least some of these concepts. In that case this book will take more effort. Look into Carlo Rovelli’s books. He’s a quantum physicist, or more accurately a specialist in loop quantum gravity, who has written several small books for the general public. He’s a good place to start. Begin with his, “Seven Brief Lessons on Physics”. Another friend is suggesting, “We Have No Idea: A Guide to the Unknown Universe”, by Jorge Cham, PhD, in robotics and Daniel Whiteson an experimental particle physicist, as a ‘lighter’ introduction to the world of quantum physics, relativity and classical physics (I’m currently reading this and find their style somewhat off-putting and ‘juvenile’, but maybe this works for some. I put it down after reading about 2/3 of it). Familiarize yourself with the general outlines of the history of science. It is very easy to never question the period in which we live, how it shapes our lives and the issues which shape how we know the world. Don’t settle too comfortably into a singular dimension of thought. Question. Reach out to the contemplative practices of Christian mysticism, Buddhism, Hinduism the Jewish Kaballah, there are many paths which share a large part of their understanding of life and the universe, with the ‘new’ sciences. Curiosity and possibility open the world to examination.

In the late ’80’s I found Mae-Wan Ho’s books, a geneticist/bio-chemist, who opened my eyes to the physics of life. She, and polymath Ervin Laszlo, have both written of a creative universe suggesting the metaphor, or did they intend it as ‘real’, that matter, organisms, all things in the universe emerge from the energies within the fabric of space/time itself, behaving as if they were swirling vortices within a frictionless, energy dense ‘media’, the ‘fabric’ of space/time, connected directly, intimately, instantaneously and continuously, forming structures and processes, which themselves, influence what will follow, ‘vortices’ never entirely dissipating, ‘remembered’ in this way. We are, they suggest, energy manifested, that all that ever has been is still contained within it, whether memory, consciousness or simply an unending and unfolding process. Complexity, arising from and returning to it to re-emerge in slightly different form.

I would love to sit in on a discussion between Theise, Mae-Won Ho, Laszlo, Margulis and Robert Sapolsky, the neurobiologist and author of the books, “Behave” and “Determined”…but of course that”s impossible. If all of this seems too far out there, airy-fairy conjecture, educate yourself. Don’t be content with having given these issues little thought. Many ‘science’ writers will speak of the necessity for wonder and awe, the need to study and learn, in order to really understand the world in which we live and the value that flows from that. If when you look out at the world, at others, you see little of interest, if you lack curiosity, find yourself rarely amazed by the world around you, maybe you aren’t looking at it properly.

As a complex system the modern human world is failing to fulfill three of the requirements for a complex system to remain responsive, adaptive to continue indefinitely in a dynamic world. By doing this we are putting our own futures at risk as we continue to act in ways that seriously compromise the earth’s systems upon which we ultimately depend. We certainly have enough ‘members’ or ‘parts’, but our activity and interactions are very structured and limited. We are unable to freely choose the behaviors and alternative we might were society not so narrowly and tightly structured. The second condition is not operating as it needs to. Individual behavior is restricted. We, as individuals, do not act independently in our best interest. Governments and economies have interceded and strictly limit possibilities, providing us with very few genuine options. Yes, we have many products to choose from, prepared for and marketed to us, and alternatives are being explored, but the ability to adopt them, to move out of old failing patterns, is restricted in a variety of ways. We have a very strong, top-down, hierarchical system.

The third requirement, that negative feedback loops prevail is only partially in effect. Activities which are harmful to the individual, and us as a whole, are too often supported by the system so that we do not feel their effects as they would otherwise mount. Often because of society’s structures those negative results are directed upon the less powerful, very often the people least responsible for causing them, while we are shielded from their consequences. We are, in a real sense, buffered from the pain we cause.

And the fourth requirement, that the system operate within a limited range of randomness, is also hampered. Our society is very conservative in that it actively limits the pursuit of alternatives. While it may venerate experimentation, creativity, innovation, etc, which will naturally occur in a free system, ours strictly limits it through rigid hierarchies, greed and the all too common drive to control those around us. Change, creativity always begins at the margins. As it gains success, more people adopt said alternatives. this only happens in a limited way today while systems around us work to control such changes for their own limited and generally immediate benefit. Long term thinking is suppressed and, as a result, opportunities are lost and failure and boom/bust cycles, which can be devastating, become more commonly the pathway to change. Just sayin’….People must be free to explore and challenge the accepted.

---

Complexity and systems science, have many applications. these are essential to our understanding of weather and climate. These are incredibly complex systems. Through these sciences meteorologists and climatologists have developed ever more accurate predictive models to show how relatively small changes in energy, heat, added to the earth system, can alter climate patterns, driving potentially wildly swinging weather events as the system is pushed out of balance or homeostasis. This together with studies of atmospheric and climatological changes over earth’s many millions of years history is equipping them with tools they can use to model possible future climate scenarios to educate the public and lawmakers so that we might avoid worse calamities. It also ‘explains’ why it is virtually impossible to predict with certainty what tomorrow’s weather might be, or next month’s or that ten years from now. The future will always remain hazy, approximate across a probable range. Sometimes particular changes arise that can align by chance causing much larger than expected patterns. Such is the nature of complex systems. There will always be multiple, dynamic and changing scenarios over time. The future is not predetermined nor is it knowable in a precise way.

The lack of certainty of this science causes many to reject the possibility of such changes…critics demand exactitude in every instance. For them any error is cause to reject expertise and the possibility of Climate Change. However, science and life have never worked this way. Such demands set an impossible standard for acceptance. People’s need for a stable, knowable tomorrow, is based on their limited knowledge of the past and their ignorance of conditions that have been ‘proven’ to have existed here over geologic time, conditions ranging from either far too cold, or far too hot, for life as we know it today to exist, changes that generally evolved over thousands or even millions of years. Such a ‘standard’ likely leads to their fears about tomorrow. Climate change, personal security, the future, all seem to be increasingly in doubt today and they recoil. But life has always been this way. It is their doubt, their demand that causes them such distress, turns them against one another, closes them off to possibility, cripples the processes that could ordinarily move us ahead. Rigid expectations, a lack of alternatives or even the will to explore alternatives, stand in our way today. Add the crippling and divisive views of small minded people, of those who desire power and reject what they refuse to understand, feeding on the fear of others, and our collective future is in serious doubt.