The central hypothesis of this research is that there are currently two theoretical proposals within the Big Story: the better known proposal of Fred Spier (1952 - ) and the lesser known proposal of Pedro Ortiz Cabanillas (1933 – 2011) implicitly contained in his Sociobiological Informational Theory. We will proceed to present and synthesize the two theories of Big History made by Spier and Ortiz, comparing them and identifying points of contact and differences. Spier’s theoretical proposal presents the becoming of the universe in three moments: cosmological, biological and social. The epistemological basis being a qualitative theory of complexity. Ortiz’s proposal (based on a qualitative theory of information) presents the evolution of the universe in six levels of complexity. In parallel, we would have: level 0 (Spier’s cosmological moment); level one, two, three and four (Spier’s biological level); and level 5 (Spier’s social moment). There are occasional differences between the two approaches, but more are the articulations and points of contact. The hypothesis of this research is correct: Spier (explicitly) and Ortiz (implicitly) have explanatory theories of Big History. Even if Spier and Ortiz never had contact (neither personally nor academically), their theories are articulated in the same explanatory scheme and are epistemologically nourished simultaneously. Big History is strengthened by what is presented here
{"title":"Two Theoretical Perspectives to Explain Big History: Fred Spier & Pedro Ortiz Cabanillas","authors":"Hans Contreras-Pulache","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7309","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7309","url":null,"abstract":"The central hypothesis of this research is that there are currently two theoretical proposals within the Big Story: the better known proposal of Fred Spier (1952 - ) and the lesser known proposal of Pedro Ortiz Cabanillas (1933 – 2011) implicitly contained in his Sociobiological Informational Theory. We will proceed to present and synthesize the two theories of Big History made by Spier and Ortiz, comparing them and identifying points of contact and differences. Spier’s theoretical proposal presents the becoming of the universe in three moments: cosmological, biological and social. The epistemological basis being a qualitative theory of complexity. Ortiz’s proposal (based on a qualitative theory of information) presents the evolution of the universe in six levels of complexity. In parallel, we would have: level 0 (Spier’s cosmological moment); level one, two, three and four (Spier’s biological level); and level 5 (Spier’s social moment). There are occasional differences between the two approaches, but more are the articulations and points of contact. The hypothesis of this research is correct: Spier (explicitly) and Ortiz (implicitly) have explanatory theories of Big History. Even if Spier and Ortiz never had contact (neither personally nor academically), their theories are articulated in the same explanatory scheme and are epistemologically nourished simultaneously. Big History is strengthened by what is presented here","PeriodicalId":326067,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Big History","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141706009","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
La hipótesis central de esta investigación es que actualmente existen dos propuestas teóricas dentro de la Gran Historia: la propuesta declarada y reconocida mundialmente de Fred Spier y la propuesta desconocida de Pedro Ortiz Cabanillas implícitamente contenida en su Teoría Sociobiológica Informacional. Se procederá a sintetizar y presentar las dos propuestas teóricas de Gran Historia de Spier y de Ortiz, comparándolas e identificando puntos de contacto y diferencias. La propuesta teórica de Spier, sintéticamente, presenta el devenir del universo en tres momentos: cosmológico, biológico y social; siendo la base epistemológica una teoría cualitativa de la complejidad. La propuesta de Ortiz (sobre la base de una teoría cualitativa de la información) presenta el devenir del universo en seis niveles de complejidad. De modo paralelo tendríamos: el nivel 0 (el momento cosmológico de Spier); el nivel uno, dos, tres y cuatro (el nivel biológico de Spier); y el nivel 5 (el momento social de Spier). Existen diferencias puntuales entre ambos planteamientos, pero más son las articulaciones y puntos de contacto. La hipótesis de esta investigación es correcta: tanto Spier (explícitamente) como Ortiz (implícitamente) tienen teorías explicativas de la Gran Historia. Aun cuando Spier y Ortiz nunca tuvieron contacto (ni personal ni académico), sus teorías se articulan en un mismo esquema explicativo y se nutren epistemológicamente de modo simultaneo. La Gran Historia se fortalece a partir de lo que aquí se devela.
{"title":"Dos Perspectivas Teóricas para Explicar la Gran Historia: Fred Spier & Pedro Ortiz Cabanillas","authors":"H. Contreras-Pulache","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7303","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7303","url":null,"abstract":"La hipótesis central de esta investigación es que actualmente existen dos propuestas teóricas dentro de la Gran Historia: la propuesta declarada y reconocida mundialmente de Fred Spier y la propuesta desconocida de Pedro Ortiz Cabanillas implícitamente contenida en su Teoría Sociobiológica Informacional. Se procederá a sintetizar y presentar las dos propuestas teóricas de Gran Historia de Spier y de Ortiz, comparándolas e identificando puntos de contacto y diferencias. La propuesta teórica de Spier, sintéticamente, presenta el devenir del universo en tres momentos: cosmológico, biológico y social; siendo la base epistemológica una teoría cualitativa de la complejidad. La propuesta de Ortiz (sobre la base de una teoría cualitativa de la información) presenta el devenir del universo en seis niveles de complejidad. De modo paralelo tendríamos: el nivel 0 (el momento cosmológico de Spier); el nivel uno, dos, tres y cuatro (el nivel biológico de Spier); y el nivel 5 (el momento social de Spier). Existen diferencias puntuales entre ambos planteamientos, pero más son las articulaciones y puntos de contacto. La hipótesis de esta investigación es correcta: tanto Spier (explícitamente) como Ortiz (implícitamente) tienen teorías explicativas de la Gran Historia. Aun cuando Spier y Ortiz nunca tuvieron contacto (ni personal ni académico), sus teorías se articulan en un mismo esquema explicativo y se nutren epistemológicamente de modo simultaneo. La Gran Historia se fortalece a partir de lo que aquí se devela.","PeriodicalId":326067,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Big History","volume":"10 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141713754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A Big History of One’s Own","authors":"Sun Yue","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7304","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7304","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":326067,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Big History","volume":"20 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141716925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Big Bang theory is believed to be based on three problems to the tired light model. In this report, “time dilation of high redshift quasars” is first explained with the stress cosmology. A proceeding (delaying) speed of time is shown as a logarithm of changed energy. Second, “surface brightness” relates to “time dilation” and the combined luminosity per unit time. It decreases with time dilation. Third, according to the stress cosmology, the “cosmic microwave background” is explained with a relation between movement distance and decreasing energy quantity of discharged light. Thus, three problems can be explained with the stress cosmology being part of the tired light model. Therefore, there is no absolute proof of the Big Bang theory. Moreover, there is a fatal contradiction relating to the first law of thermodynamics in the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory required that the universe be a closed system according to the first law of thermodynamics. Nevertheless, the ekpyrotic universe theory is utilized to explain the Big Bang. The first law of thermodynamics indicates that our universe was an open system. The Big Bang theory is optional.
{"title":"Explanation of Time Dilation of High Redshift Quasars, Surface Brightness, and Cosmic Microwave Background with the Stress Cosmology","authors":"Hideaki Yanagisawa","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7307","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7307","url":null,"abstract":"The Big Bang theory is believed to be based on three problems to the tired light model. In this report, “time dilation of high redshift quasars” is first explained with the stress cosmology. A proceeding (delaying) speed of time is shown as a logarithm of changed energy. Second, “surface brightness” relates to “time dilation” and the combined luminosity per unit time. It decreases with time dilation. Third, according to the stress cosmology, the “cosmic microwave background” is explained with a relation between movement distance and decreasing energy quantity of discharged light. Thus, three problems can be explained with the stress cosmology being part of the tired light model. Therefore, there is no absolute proof of the Big Bang theory. Moreover, there is a fatal contradiction relating to the first law of thermodynamics in the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory required that the universe be a closed system according to the first law of thermodynamics. Nevertheless, the ekpyrotic universe theory is utilized to explain the Big Bang. The first law of thermodynamics indicates that our universe was an open system. The Big Bang theory is optional.","PeriodicalId":326067,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Big History","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141693456","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The gathering and hunting humans who evolved from earlier manifestations of Homo changed the distribution of forests on the planet through their use of fire to direct biological productivity to their sustenance, and through their contribution to the elimination of much of the global terrestrial megafauna. Land clearance at any scale awaited the development of agriculture, the several independent origins of which may indicate that it is an emergent outcome from the combination of a social animal who can transmit knowledge through generations and who lives in environments that support high numbers of food plants. The transition from uncleared forest and treeless land to land cleared for agriculture was slow, often reversed, and limited by the necessity to produce more energy in food production than in the inputs that created comestibles. Increases in cleared land until the nineteenth century were largely a product of the displacement of gathering and hunting people by disease-ridden European agriculturalists and world trade imposed on non-Europeans by colonialists. The explosion in fossil fuel usage from the nineteenth century onwards enabled exponential growth in human populations and cleared land, with the consequence of a crash in forest cover. Ironically, attempts to mitigate global warming caused by increased fossil fuel use, deforestation and land clearance have resulted in more land clearance for biofuels. While settlements, roads, logging, plantation establishment and dam construction have all contributed to the decrease in the native terrestrial cover of the planet, their contribution has been minor compared to the massive impact of agricultural development.
{"title":"A Big History of Land Clearance and Deforestation","authors":"Jamie B. Kirkpatrick","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7301","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7301","url":null,"abstract":"The gathering and hunting humans who evolved from earlier manifestations of Homo changed the distribution of forests on the planet through their use of fire to direct biological productivity to their sustenance, and through their contribution to the elimination of much of the global terrestrial megafauna. Land clearance at any scale awaited the development of agriculture, the several independent origins of which may indicate that it is an emergent outcome from the combination of a social animal who can transmit knowledge through generations and who lives in environments that support high numbers of food plants. The transition from uncleared forest and treeless land to land cleared for agriculture was slow, often reversed, and limited by the necessity to produce more energy in food production than in the inputs that created comestibles. Increases in cleared land until the nineteenth century were largely a product of the displacement of gathering and hunting people by disease-ridden European agriculturalists and world trade imposed on non-Europeans by colonialists. The explosion in fossil fuel usage from the nineteenth century onwards enabled exponential growth in human populations and cleared land, with the consequence of a crash in forest cover. Ironically, attempts to mitigate global warming caused by increased fossil fuel use, deforestation and land clearance have resulted in more land clearance for biofuels. While settlements, roads, logging, plantation establishment and dam construction have all contributed to the decrease in the native terrestrial cover of the planet, their contribution has been minor compared to the massive impact of agricultural development.","PeriodicalId":326067,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Big History","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141712839","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Darwin’s theory of natural selection raises two critical questions: What is ultimately being selected? Why is it inevitably being innovative? In response, the five key theories of evolution begin with species, genes, organisms, systems, processes. And they lead to a sixth key theory that begins with exchange. Specifically, I re-configure Darwin-Peirce-Einstein’s special theories of evolution-semiosis-relativity in a radical theory of exchangesignificationvalue. In this context I suggest that the relative signifying relations of exchange are both exuberantly innovative and restrictively selective and they drive the process of evolution. Instead of beginning with a post hoc theory of restrictive selection, therefore, I begin with an ad hoc theory of exuberant innovation. Every so-called thing in this so-called universe is actually no-thing more and no-thing less than a co-incidental articulation of the long evolutionary history of the relative signifying relations of exchange—beginning with energymass massenergy. In fact, time itself can be understood as the rhythmic syntax of exchange. While some recent general theories of evolutionary history begin with energy flows, quantum bits, emergent complexities, etc., I suggest that the dynamic of exchange evolves nature, the practice of exchange evolves culture, the syntax of exchange evolves history. Here we arrive at the proof that is to be demonstrated: Evolution = Exchange.
{"title":"Evolution = Exchange","authors":"André de Vinck","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7306","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7306","url":null,"abstract":"Darwin’s theory of natural selection raises two critical questions: What is ultimately being selected? Why is it inevitably being innovative? In response, the five key theories of evolution begin with species, genes, organisms, systems, processes. And they lead to a sixth key theory that begins with exchange. Specifically, I re-configure Darwin-Peirce-Einstein’s special theories of evolution-semiosis-relativity in a radical theory of exchangesignificationvalue. In this context I suggest that the relative signifying relations of exchange are both exuberantly innovative and restrictively selective and they drive the process of evolution. Instead of beginning with a post hoc theory of restrictive selection, therefore, I begin with an ad hoc theory of exuberant innovation. Every so-called thing in this so-called universe is actually no-thing more and no-thing less than a co-incidental articulation of the long evolutionary history of the relative signifying relations of exchange—beginning with energymass massenergy. In fact, time itself can be understood as the rhythmic syntax of exchange. While some recent general theories of evolutionary history begin with energy flows, quantum bits, emergent complexities, etc., I suggest that the dynamic of exchange evolves nature, the practice of exchange evolves culture, the syntax of exchange evolves history. Here we arrive at the proof that is to be demonstrated: Evolution = Exchange.","PeriodicalId":326067,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Big History","volume":"88 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141690671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Structural change is an important process that is much studied in economic history. Early studies include industrialization and the stadial theories of human activities. Biologists have adopted “economic” concepts of competition, cooperation and innovation to study the history of life in a broader sense. Extending the study of structural change over an even longer time frame is likely to require the adoption of new analytical frameworks. One possible approach is the computational-information-entropy-complexity framework. This could lead to a novel perspective that places economic history within a broader Big Economic History.
{"title":"Structural Change in Big Economic History","authors":"Cassey Lee","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7302","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7302","url":null,"abstract":"Structural change is an important process that is much studied in economic history. Early studies include industrialization and the stadial theories of human activities. Biologists have adopted “economic” concepts of competition, cooperation and innovation to study the history of life in a broader sense. Extending the study of structural change over an even longer time frame is likely to require the adoption of new analytical frameworks. One possible approach is the computational-information-entropy-complexity framework. This could lead to a novel perspective that places economic history within a broader Big Economic History.","PeriodicalId":326067,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Big History","volume":"86 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141712044","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is the third article in a series about the General Law of Being, a science philosophy that was introduced by Chinese scholar Wang Dongyue twenty years ago and then expanded upon by Chen Ye, who linked it to other scientific and philosophical traditions as well as to Big History. We encourage readers to review the previous two articles in the Journal of Big History, volume 6, issues 1 and 2. Article 1 addressed how all entities in the universe – ‘beings’ – are finite and dependent. Horizontally, their existence is realized through the structural coupling of their interactive-quality with other being(s)’s interactable-quality, and vertically through the superposition of their historical structural-coupling states. Article 2 reveals the interplay of the two opposite forces that govern evolution – conservation and variation. This evolution / variation progress occurs through the differentiation of beings, level by level – each level of organization results from differentiation of beings at a lower level of organization, with the ‘adaptation task’ distributed to specialized roles at higher levels. However, this ascent comes with a trade-off – the existence of a higher-level being depends on an increasing number of conditions. These conditions not only facilitate its functioning but also expose it to greater risks, which means that higher-level beings have weaker, or more unstable structures. Meanwhile, the increasing number of conditions perplexes the sense-reaction process, giving rise to more advanced cognitive patterns to coordinate the process. In this article, we first examine the situation of the most sophisticated ‘natural’ structure formed by the most complex species – human society, by applying the fundamental principles discussed in Articles 1 and 2. We then systematize various clues in macro-evolution and based on theories previously outlined, we build our model of evolution to address the ultimate driving force behind evolution.
{"title":"The General Law of Being, Article 3: The Ultimate Cause of Evolution","authors":"Ye Chen","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7305","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7305","url":null,"abstract":"This is the third article in a series about the General Law of Being, a science philosophy that was introduced by Chinese scholar Wang Dongyue twenty years ago and then expanded upon by Chen Ye, who linked it to other scientific and philosophical traditions as well as to Big History. We encourage readers to review the previous two articles in the Journal of Big History, volume 6, issues 1 and 2. Article 1 addressed how all entities in the universe – ‘beings’ – are finite and dependent. Horizontally, their existence is realized through the structural coupling of their interactive-quality with other being(s)’s interactable-quality, and vertically through the superposition of their historical structural-coupling states. Article 2 reveals the interplay of the two opposite forces that govern evolution – conservation and variation. This evolution / variation progress occurs through the differentiation of beings, level by level – each level of organization results from differentiation of beings at a lower level of organization, with the ‘adaptation task’ distributed to specialized roles at higher levels. However, this ascent comes with a trade-off – the existence of a higher-level being depends on an increasing number of conditions. These conditions not only facilitate its functioning but also expose it to greater risks, which means that higher-level beings have weaker, or more unstable structures. Meanwhile, the increasing number of conditions perplexes the sense-reaction process, giving rise to more advanced cognitive patterns to coordinate the process. In this article, we first examine the situation of the most sophisticated ‘natural’ structure formed by the most complex species – human society, by applying the fundamental principles discussed in Articles 1 and 2. We then systematize various clues in macro-evolution and based on theories previously outlined, we build our model of evolution to address the ultimate driving force behind evolution.","PeriodicalId":326067,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Big History","volume":"5 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141694343","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mass and energy rate (ER) data have been collected for a wide variety of (complex) systems from the biological, cultural, and cosmological realms. They range from the cytochrome oxidase protein (10-22 kg and 6x10-19 W) to the observable universe (1.5x1053 kg and 1048 W) and, thus, span 75 mass and 66 ER orders of magnitude. Many of these systems are relevant for the big history (BH) narrative, i.e., the development of complexity over “big time” from the Big Bang up to the human society on Earth of today. The purpose of this paper is not per se to describe their history though, but to explore a master plot of ER vs. mass. Notably, the development of systems over big time has followed a rather tortuous path criss-crossing over this ER vs. mass master plot. The true mass of the system as a whole is used (for example trees including the non-living wood, living organisms including their intrinsic water, and social systems including the built constructs), because these inactive parts are essential for the performance of the system and facilitate its ER. A double logarithmic master plot of all ER vs. mass data shows clusters of data points. To some extent, this provides quantitative support for the distinction between the (sub-)realms, which is based on a qualitative description of their material structure and energy processing. In the master plot, small systems with low mass and ER converge into larger systems with larger mass and ER, which is typically accompanied by a decrease of the energy rate density (ERD = ER/mass). Correlation of ER with mass for various groups of systems demonstrates both sub- and supra-linear scaling with the power law β constant varying between 0.5 and 4.0, showing that the mechanisms of self-organisation are quite different for the corresponding system groups. The combination of convergence and scaling with β always larger than zero explains why the ER & mass data points fall in a diagonal band with a width of 17 orders of magnitude. ER and mass have changed over wide ranges during the evolution of groups of systems, suggesting that evolution can be viewed as a process of systems exploring a larger ER vs. mass area until they run into ER and/or mass limitations. Indeed, there is a diagonal ER vs. mass limit for stable systems in all realms, corresponding to an ERD value of around 105 W/kg. Systems with ER & mass combinations above this limit, such as bombs, super-novae and cosmological transients, are unstable and “explosive”. This raises the interesting question of whether such an ERD maximum puts a limit on the development of complexity over big time. It seems that the low, right side of the master plot is empty. However, it is argued here that it is full of systems with low ER, such as dormant, living organisms, technological systems with their power adjusted or even switched off, as well as cooling, cosmological objects. Such systems are typically considered of less interest in a BH context, but they are viewed here as
{"title":"What can we learn from a master plot of energy rate versus mass for a very wide variety of (complex) systems?","authors":"Martin Van Duin","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i1.7103","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i1.7103","url":null,"abstract":"Mass and energy rate (ER) data have been collected for a wide variety of (complex) systems from the biological, cultural, and cosmological realms. They range from the cytochrome oxidase protein (10-22 kg and 6x10-19 W) to the observable universe (1.5x1053 kg and 1048 W) and, thus, span 75 mass and 66 ER orders of magnitude. Many of these systems are relevant for the big history (BH) narrative, i.e., the development of complexity over “big time” from the Big Bang up to the human society on Earth of today. The purpose of this paper is not per se to describe their history though, but to explore a master plot of ER vs. mass. Notably, the development of systems over big time has followed a rather tortuous path criss-crossing over this ER vs. mass master plot. The true mass of the system as a whole is used (for example trees including the non-living wood, living organisms including their intrinsic water, and social systems including the built constructs), because these inactive parts are essential for the performance of the system and facilitate its ER. A double logarithmic master plot of all ER vs. mass data shows clusters of data points. To some extent, this provides quantitative support for the distinction between the (sub-)realms, which is based on a qualitative description of their material structure and energy processing. In the master plot, small systems with low mass and ER converge into larger systems with larger mass and ER, which is typically accompanied by a decrease of the energy rate density (ERD = ER/mass). Correlation of ER with mass for various groups of systems demonstrates both sub- and supra-linear scaling with the power law β constant varying between 0.5 and 4.0, showing that the mechanisms of self-organisation are quite different for the corresponding system groups. The combination of convergence and scaling with β always larger than zero explains why the ER & mass data points fall in a diagonal band with a width of 17 orders of magnitude. \u0000ER and mass have changed over wide ranges during the evolution of groups of systems, suggesting that evolution can be viewed as a process of systems exploring a larger ER vs. mass area until they run into ER and/or mass limitations. Indeed, there is a diagonal ER vs. mass limit for stable systems in all realms, corresponding to an ERD value of around 105 W/kg. Systems with ER & mass combinations above this limit, such as bombs, super-novae and cosmological transients, are unstable and “explosive”. This raises the interesting question of whether such an ERD maximum puts a limit on the development of complexity over big time. It seems that the low, right side of the master plot is empty. However, it is argued here that it is full of systems with low ER, such as dormant, living organisms, technological systems with their power adjusted or even switched off, as well as cooling, cosmological objects. Such systems are typically considered of less interest in a BH context, but they are viewed here as ","PeriodicalId":326067,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Big History","volume":"67 39","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139534622","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cosmic Evolution, by Eric J. Chaisson is arguably one of the original “core” texts of big history. Despite being published over 20 years ago, it is still relevant for its explanation of the cosmological and thermodynamic underpinnings of the evolution of complex systems over the span of time. It was also a pioneering work because it proposed that we can quantify the degree of complexity of systems by determining the quantity of the “free energy rate density” or FERD (abbreviated as “Ωm” in Cosmic Evolution) that flows through a system. Although Chaisson advises that his correlations of FERD to complexity degree is subject to various limitations and generalizations, careful analysis of the arguments and examples used to support FERD indicates that it is even less likely to be as reliable and quantifiable than he purports for at least the following reasons:1. The author offers a relatively short list of criteria for a system to qualify being “complex” that in turn results in the inclusion of systems that are not classified as complex by usual criteria. 2. Free energy rate density is not compared against other complexity metrics and subsequently seems to serve as its own “gold standard.” The lack of comparisons results in a tautological argument and sometimes questionable conclusions.3. The argument for FERD sometimes deviates from the hypothesis that FERD is a good way to measure the degree of a system’s complexity to a claim that it also measures complex functions and structures as well. 4. The FERD that he reports are often actually for the total energy flow through a system. Hence, a much more efficient complexity might only appear to be less complex. 5. Complex systems have many variables that can confound attempts to make reliable and precise generalizations, including good metrics for their degree.
{"title":"Reexamining “Free Energy Rate Density” as a Complexity Metric","authors":"Ken Solis","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i1.7102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i1.7102","url":null,"abstract":"Cosmic Evolution, by Eric J. Chaisson is arguably one of the original “core” texts of big history. Despite being published over 20 years ago, it is still relevant for its explanation of the cosmological and thermodynamic underpinnings of the evolution of complex systems over the span of time. It was also a pioneering work because it proposed that we can quantify the degree of complexity of systems by determining the quantity of the “free energy rate density” or FERD (abbreviated as “Ωm” in Cosmic Evolution) that flows through a system. Although Chaisson advises that his correlations of FERD to complexity degree is subject to various limitations and generalizations, careful analysis of the arguments and examples used to support FERD indicates that it is even less likely to be as reliable and quantifiable than he purports for at least the following reasons:1. The author offers a relatively short list of criteria for a system to qualify being “complex” that in turn results in the inclusion of systems that are not classified as complex by usual criteria. 2. Free energy rate density is not compared against other complexity metrics and subsequently seems to serve as its own “gold standard.” The lack of comparisons results in a tautological argument and sometimes questionable conclusions.3. The argument for FERD sometimes deviates from the hypothesis that FERD is a good way to measure the degree of a system’s complexity to a claim that it also measures complex functions and structures as well. 4. The FERD that he reports are often actually for the total energy flow through a system. Hence, a much more efficient complexity might only appear to be less complex. 5. Complex systems have many variables that can confound attempts to make reliable and precise generalizations, including good metrics for their degree.","PeriodicalId":326067,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Big History","volume":" 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139627429","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：