Although complexity plays a significant role in big history, substantial gaps persist in our comprehension. While the papers in this issue do not provide definitive answers to these gaps, they contribute to the ongoing discussion on how to address these issues and propose potential pathways for resolution. These gaps encompass measurement, focus, organization, relevance, consistency, and interpretation. While there may not be unanimous agreement on the specific direction to take, the academic discussions evident in these papers aim to elucidate the issues and foster understanding within the expansive and diverse scientific community.
{"title":"Continuously evolving to bridge significant gaps in our understanding of complexity","authors":"David LePoire","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7201","url":null,"abstract":"Although complexity plays a significant role in big history, substantial gaps persist in our comprehension. While the papers in this issue do not provide definitive answers to these gaps, they contribute to the ongoing discussion on how to address these issues and propose potential pathways for resolution. These gaps encompass measurement, focus, organization, relevance, consistency, and interpretation. While there may not be unanimous agreement on the specific direction to take, the academic discussions evident in these papers aim to elucidate the issues and foster understanding within the expansive and diverse scientific community.","PeriodicalId":479078,"journal":{"name":"Journal of big history","volume":"265 43‐47","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140704220","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}
Unfortunately, there is insufficient research on the course of chemical evolution within the framework of the study of both Big History and evolution. The lack of attention to chemical evolution is all the more disappointing since it is a very important part of megaevolution and Big History, which at some of its stages even act as the leading line (in particular, in the formation of pre-life on the Earth five billion years ago). The paper presents a brief history of chemical evolution: from the formation of the first atoms in the Universe to abiogenesis on the Earth, that is, the stage of pre-life and the formation of prerequisites for the emergence of the first living organisms. The history of chemical evolution before life's origin can be divided into three stages: the formation of atoms (pre-evolution); history before the start of the abiogenic phase on the Earth; and abiogenic chemical evolution. However, the author aims to elaborate a more detailed periodization of chemical evolution before life's origin. One should also pay attention to the important feature of chemical evolution which distinguishes it from other lines of evolution, namely, its co-evolutionary nature. The author demonstrates that chemical evolution at all its stages acted as a part of a co-evolutionary tandem: first, as a part of cosmic and stellar-galactic evolution, then as a part of planetary evolution since it is on planets (where temperature parameters are much more comfortable for chemical reactions) that a new qualitative stage in the development of chemical evolution begins. Finally, on the Earth, it developed first as a part of geochemical evolution, and then as a part of bio-chemical evolution, and this development continues until now.
{"title":"Chemical Evolution in Big History","authors":"Leonid Grinin","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7208","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7208","url":null,"abstract":"Unfortunately, there is insufficient research on the course of chemical evolution within the framework of the study of both Big History and evolution. The lack of attention to chemical evolution is all the more disappointing since it is a very important part of megaevolution and Big History, which at some of its stages even act as the leading line (in particular, in the formation of pre-life on the Earth five billion years ago). The paper presents a brief history of chemical evolution: from the formation of the first atoms in the Universe to abiogenesis on the Earth, that is, the stage of pre-life and the formation of prerequisites for the emergence of the first living organisms. The history of chemical evolution before life's origin can be divided into three stages: the formation of atoms (pre-evolution); history before the start of the abiogenic phase on the Earth; and abiogenic chemical evolution. However, the author aims to elaborate a more detailed periodization of chemical evolution before life's origin. One should also pay attention to the important feature of chemical evolution which distinguishes it from other lines of evolution, namely, its co-evolutionary nature. The author demonstrates that chemical evolution at all its stages acted as a part of a co-evolutionary tandem: first, as a part of cosmic and stellar-galactic evolution, then as a part of planetary evolution since it is on planets (where temperature parameters are much more comfortable for chemical reactions) that a new qualitative stage in the development of chemical evolution begins. Finally, on the Earth, it developed first as a part of geochemical evolution, and then as a part of bio-chemical evolution, and this development continues until now.","PeriodicalId":479078,"journal":{"name":"Journal of big history","volume":"11 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140698857","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 study investigates links between human evolution, information transmission processes, and Chaos Theory, revealing a mathematical pattern underlying evolutionary milestones. By examining the timing of new methods of information transmission, the research confirms a suspected correlation with the Feigenbaum constant δ, a universal factor in Chaos Theory and also found in complex systems. This pattern is prominent in cultural evolution but also extends to biological evolution, as well as to the evolution of written language, suggesting a predictable framework for understanding the progression of complexity in life. The study incorporates findings from various disciplines, including cognitive science, archaeology, and nonlinear dynamics, providing evidence that our development, while it may be random in most aspects, is deterministic in the way complexity grows steadily and evolves information transmission of increasing sophistication. This multidisciplinary approach offers new insights into the links between chaos, complexity, and information, and their role in driving the evolution of intelligent life.
{"title":"How Chaos Theory Brings Order to the Evolution of Intelligence","authors":"Nicholas Hoggard","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7205","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7205","url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates links between human evolution, information transmission processes, and Chaos Theory, revealing a mathematical pattern underlying evolutionary milestones. By examining the timing of new methods of information transmission, the research confirms a suspected correlation with the Feigenbaum constant δ, a universal factor in Chaos Theory and also found in complex systems. This pattern is prominent in cultural evolution but also extends to biological evolution, as well as to the evolution of written language, suggesting a predictable framework for understanding the progression of complexity in life. The study incorporates findings from various disciplines, including cognitive science, archaeology, and nonlinear dynamics, providing evidence that our development, while it may be random in most aspects, is deterministic in the way complexity grows steadily and evolves information transmission of increasing sophistication. This multidisciplinary approach offers new insights into the links between chaos, complexity, and information, and their role in driving the evolution of intelligent life.","PeriodicalId":479078,"journal":{"name":"Journal of big history","volume":"59 s78","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140700539","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}
Over nearly fifty years, Big History has evolved as an interdisciplinary approach, connecting cosmic, geological, biological, and cultural phenomena into a unified narrative of increasing complexity. This paper critically examines various theoretical frameworks within Big History, focusing on their scientific soundness. While progress has been made, challenges persist in establishing a theoretical core and achieving consensus. Commonalities exist, such as the recognition of a trend toward increasing complexity, the division into temporal eras and periods, and the acknowledgment of unique dynamics defining these phases. However, a consensus on the best foundational principles and canonical periods remains elusive. The paper suggests three strategies for theory development: employing cross-disciplinary theories, generalizing discipline-specific theories, or inventing novel theories. Each approach requires further refinement and empirical testing to contribute to consensus building. Big History is argued to have utility based on its ability to contextualize events within a broader framework, but more ambitious rationales and empirical work may be necessary for skeptical audiences. Despite ongoing theoretical debates, immediate progress can be achieved through empirical endeavors, contributing to the discipline's reputation.
{"title":"On Trends and Periods in Big History","authors":"R. Aunger","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7204","url":null,"abstract":"Over nearly fifty years, Big History has evolved as an interdisciplinary approach, connecting cosmic, geological, biological, and cultural phenomena into a unified narrative of increasing complexity. This paper critically examines various theoretical frameworks within Big History, focusing on their scientific soundness. While progress has been made, challenges persist in establishing a theoretical core and achieving consensus. Commonalities exist, such as the recognition of a trend toward increasing complexity, the division into temporal eras and periods, and the acknowledgment of unique dynamics defining these phases. However, a consensus on the best foundational principles and canonical periods remains elusive. The paper suggests three strategies for theory development: employing cross-disciplinary theories, generalizing discipline-specific theories, or inventing novel theories. Each approach requires further refinement and empirical testing to contribute to consensus building. Big History is argued to have utility based on its ability to contextualize events within a broader framework, but more ambitious rationales and empirical work may be necessary for skeptical audiences. Despite ongoing theoretical debates, immediate progress can be achieved through empirical endeavors, contributing to the discipline's reputation.","PeriodicalId":479078,"journal":{"name":"Journal of big history","volume":"26 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140700403","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}
From early on, David Christian’s vision of big history as a “modern creation myth” faced criticism for introducing elements of spirituality. This essay contends that the resulting controversy arises from a misunderstanding of the nature of myth. The mainstream model of myth depicts it as fanciful stories of supernatural agents that members of a society use to address their anxieties. While this is often the case, the author argues that myth can be more profitably explored as a neurobiological imperative that plays a critical role in cultural evolution. To make this case, he examines how the principles of complexity science helped him understand how human history has gone through periods, such as the Axial Age and Modernity, when the change produced by societies’ greatest successes demanded new ways of thinking about the world in order for those societies to survive. He then examines current neurobiology to explain how reinventing myth has allowed such societies to transform in ways that enabled them to meet the challenges produced by change. With this understanding of myth, the essay concludes with a discussion of how the myth of big history can allow us to contribute to the new ways of thinking that are emerging today, as culture evolves so we can meet our current existential challenges.
{"title":"Complexity Science and Myth in Big History","authors":"Ken Baskin","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7210","url":null,"abstract":"From early on, David Christian’s vision of big history as a “modern creation myth” faced criticism for introducing elements of spirituality. This essay contends that the resulting controversy arises from a misunderstanding of the nature of myth. The mainstream model of myth depicts it as fanciful stories of supernatural agents that members of a society use to address their anxieties. While this is often the case, the author argues that myth can be more profitably explored as a neurobiological imperative that plays a critical role in cultural evolution. To make this case, he examines how the principles of complexity science helped him understand how human history has gone through periods, such as the Axial Age and Modernity, when the change produced by societies’ greatest successes demanded new ways of thinking about the world in order for those societies to survive. He then examines current neurobiology to explain how reinventing myth has allowed such societies to transform in ways that enabled them to meet the challenges produced by change. With this understanding of myth, the essay concludes with a discussion of how the myth of big history can allow us to contribute to the new ways of thinking that are emerging today, as culture evolves so we can meet our current existential challenges.","PeriodicalId":479078,"journal":{"name":"Journal of big history","volume":"7 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140702577","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}
Since the 1970s, cybernetic modeling of evolutionary processes has progressed, particularly with the development of the informatics-cybernetic model (ICM). This model conceptualizes humanity as a self-regulating hierarchical network system, continuously tracking energy-based target crite-ria through search optimization algorithms. The outcomes are recorded in the system memory of corresponding hierarchical subsystems. Within the ICM framework, the spatio-temporal charac-teristics of global evolution exhibit modifications reminiscent of the Zhirmunsky-Kuzmin number series, a geometric progression they identified in the exploration of critical levels in biosystem development. The study also showcases applications of mathematical-cybernetic modeling results in understanding historical processes examined by archaeologists and historians.
{"title":"Exploring the Human History: Cybernetic Modeling, Systemic Perspectives, and Applications in Archaeological Eras","authors":"S. Grinchenko","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7212","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7212","url":null,"abstract":"Since the 1970s, cybernetic modeling of evolutionary processes has progressed, particularly with the development of the informatics-cybernetic model (ICM). This model conceptualizes humanity as a self-regulating hierarchical network system, continuously tracking energy-based target crite-ria through search optimization algorithms. The outcomes are recorded in the system memory of corresponding hierarchical subsystems. Within the ICM framework, the spatio-temporal charac-teristics of global evolution exhibit modifications reminiscent of the Zhirmunsky-Kuzmin number series, a geometric progression they identified in the exploration of critical levels in biosystem development. The study also showcases applications of mathematical-cybernetic modeling results in understanding historical processes examined by archaeologists and historians.","PeriodicalId":479078,"journal":{"name":"Journal of big history","volume":"293 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140703911","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 general evolutionary theory can be seen as a comprehensive generalization and extension of Darwin's theory. The basic idea is to consider not only the evolution of genetic information - as Darwin did - but also the evolution of very general information. It shows that evolution is characterized by the fact that new types of information have developed in leaps and bounds, each with new storage technologies, new duplication technologies and new processing technologies. This unified concept of evolution makes it possible, among other things, to 1) achieve a unified view of biological and cultural evolution; 2) find a natural periodization of the evolution from the formation of the earth until today; and 3) understand the exponential acceleration of evolution through the emergence of targeted variation mechanisms.
{"title":"The General Evolutionary Theory as Unification of Biological and Cultural Evolution and as Basis for a Natural Periodization","authors":"E. Glötzl","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7206","url":null,"abstract":"The general evolutionary theory can be seen as a comprehensive generalization and extension of Darwin's theory. The basic idea is to consider not only the evolution of genetic information - as Darwin did - but also the evolution of very general information. It shows that evolution is characterized by the fact that new types of information have developed in leaps and bounds, each with new storage technologies, new duplication technologies and new processing technologies. This unified concept of evolution makes it possible, among other things, to 1) achieve a unified view of biological and cultural evolution; 2) find a natural periodization of the evolution from the formation of the earth until today; and 3) understand the exponential acceleration of evolution through the emergence of targeted variation mechanisms.","PeriodicalId":479078,"journal":{"name":"Journal of big history","volume":"41 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140701869","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 paper presents preliminary results of a quantitative analysis of two patterns of complexity growth in the Big History – decelerating universal (cosmic) evolutionary development evidenced in the Universe for a few billions of years after the Big Bang (around 13.8 billion BP) and accelerating global (biosocial) evolutionary development observed for about 4 billion years on the planet Earth since the emergence of life on it and until the early 1970s. It is shown that the first pattern can be described with an astonishing accuracy (R2 = 0.999996) by the following equation: y = C1/(t-t1*), where y is the rate of the universal complexity growth (measured as a number of phase transitions [accompanied by the growth of complexity] per a unit of time), C1 is a constant, and t-t1* is the time since the Big Bang Singularity (t1*~13.8 billion years BP). In the meantime, it was earlier shown that the second pattern could be described with an almost as high accuracy (R2 = 0.9989 to 0.9991) by the following equation: y = C2/(t2*-t), where y is the rate of accelerating global (biosocial) evolutionary development, C2 is another constant, and t2*-t is the time till the 21st century Singularity (t2*, estimated to be around 2027, or 2029 CE). Thus, the post-Big-Bang hyperbolic decrease of universal complexity growth rate and the hyperbolic increase of the growth rate of global complexity in the last 4 billion years proceeded following the same law. We are dealing here with a perfect symmetry: (1) the rate of the universal (cosmic) complexity growth decreases when we move from the Big Bang Singularity, whereas the rate of the global complexity growth increase when we approach the 21st century Singularity; (2) more specifically, as the time since the Big Bang Singularity increases n times, the universal (cosmic) complexity growth rate decreases the same n times, whereas when the time till the 21st century Singularity decreased n times, the global complexity growth rate increased the same n times. A somehow more complex symmetry is observed as regards the interaction between energy dynamics and complexity growth within both processes. The implications of the symmetry of both patterns are discussed.
本文介绍了对大历史中复杂性增长的两种模式进行定量分析的初步结果--一种是大爆炸后几十亿年（约公元前 138 亿年）宇宙中普遍（宇宙）进化发展的减速模式，另一种是自地球上出现生命以来直至 20 世纪 70 年代初约 40 亿年中地球上观察到的全球（生物社会）进化发展的加速模式。研究表明，第一种模式可以用以下等式以惊人的精确度（R2 = 0.999996）来描述：y = C1/（t-t1*），其中 y 是普遍复杂性的增长速度（以单位时间内的阶段转换次数[伴随着复杂性的增长]来衡量），C1 是常数，t-t1* 是自大爆炸奇点（t1*~138 亿年前）以来的时间。与此同时，早先的研究表明，第二种模式可以用以下等式以几乎同样高的精确度（R2 = 0.9989 至 0.9991）来描述：y = C2/（t2*-t），其中 y 是全球（生物社会）进化发展的加速率，C2 是另一个常数，t2*-t 是 21 世纪奇点（t2*，估计约为 2027 年，或西元 2029 年）之前的时间。因此，大爆炸后宇宙复杂性增长率的双曲线下降和过去 40 亿年全球复杂性增长率的双曲线上升遵循的是同一规律。我们在这里面对的是一个完美的对称性：（1）当我们从大爆炸奇点出发时，普遍（宇宙）复杂性增长率下降，而当我们接近 21 世纪奇点时，全球复杂性增长率上升；（2）更具体地说，当大爆炸奇点之后的时间增加 n 倍时，普遍（宇宙）复杂性增长率同样下降 n 倍，而当 21 世纪奇点之前的时间减少 n 倍时，全球复杂性增长率同样增加 n 倍。在这两个过程中，能量动力学与复杂性增长之间的相互作用存在着更为复杂的对称性。本文讨论了这两种模式对称性的含义。
{"title":"Complexity growth patterns in the Big History: Preliminary results of a quantitative analysis","authors":"Andrey Korotayev","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7203","url":null,"abstract":"The paper presents preliminary results of a quantitative analysis of two patterns of complexity growth in the Big History – decelerating universal (cosmic) evolutionary development evidenced in the Universe for a few billions of years after the Big Bang (around 13.8 billion BP) and accelerating global (biosocial) evolutionary development observed for about 4 billion years on the planet Earth since the emergence of life on it and until the early 1970s. It is shown that the first pattern can be described with an astonishing accuracy (R2 = 0.999996) by the following equation: y = C1/(t-t1*), where y is the rate of the universal complexity growth (measured as a number of phase transitions [accompanied by the growth of complexity] per a unit of time), C1 is a constant, and t-t1* is the time since the Big Bang Singularity (t1*~13.8 billion years BP). In the meantime, it was earlier shown that the second pattern could be described with an almost as high accuracy (R2 = 0.9989 to 0.9991) by the following equation: y = C2/(t2*-t), where y is the rate of accelerating global (biosocial) evolutionary development, C2 is another constant, and t2*-t is the time till the 21st century Singularity (t2*, estimated to be around 2027, or 2029 CE). Thus, the post-Big-Bang hyperbolic decrease of universal complexity growth rate and the hyperbolic increase of the growth rate of global complexity in the last 4 billion years proceeded following the same law. We are dealing here with a perfect symmetry: (1) the rate of the universal (cosmic) complexity growth decreases when we move from the Big Bang Singularity, whereas the rate of the global complexity growth increase when we approach the 21st century Singularity; (2) more specifically, as the time since the Big Bang Singularity increases n times, the universal (cosmic) complexity growth rate decreases the same n times, whereas when the time till the 21st century Singularity decreased n times, the global complexity growth rate increased the same n times. A somehow more complex symmetry is observed as regards the interaction between energy dynamics and complexity growth within both processes. The implications of the symmetry of both patterns are discussed.","PeriodicalId":479078,"journal":{"name":"Journal of big history","volume":"57 45","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140701437","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":"Brief Biographies of Constributors","authors":"Lowell Gustafson","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7215","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":479078,"journal":{"name":"Journal of big history","volume":"344 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140703001","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}
Complexity is a central problem for big history because big history has made complexity a central theme, constructing a cosmological periodization based on the sequential emergence of qualitatively distinct forms of complexity. How can the big historian differentiate distinct thresholds of emergent complexity while subordinating the entire sequence of thresholds to a single metric of complexity that demonstrates the increase of complexity over multiple scales of magnitude and across qualitatively distinct forms of complexity? The cosmologists’ use of a cosmic distance ladder suggests an analogous construction for complexity: a complexity ladder for big history. While no complexity ladder is formulated in this paper, the program required for a complexity ladder is sketched.
{"title":"A Complexity Ladder for Big History","authors":"J. N. Nielsen","doi":"10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7202","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22339/jbh.v7i2.7202","url":null,"abstract":"Complexity is a central problem for big history because big history has made complexity a central theme, constructing a cosmological periodization based on the sequential emergence of qualitatively distinct forms of complexity. How can the big historian differentiate distinct thresholds of emergent complexity while subordinating the entire sequence of thresholds to a single metric of complexity that demonstrates the increase of complexity over multiple scales of magnitude and across qualitatively distinct forms of complexity? The cosmologists’ use of a cosmic distance ladder suggests an analogous construction for complexity: a complexity ladder for big history. While no complexity ladder is formulated in this paper, the program required for a complexity ladder is sketched.","PeriodicalId":479078,"journal":{"name":"Journal of big history","volume":"308 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140703642","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：