Most helpful customer reviews
|
|
4.0 out of 5 stars
Non-Elementalism As A Paradigm., Jul 11 2003
Jack Cohen with Ian Stewart in "The Collapse Of Chaos" attempt to show how Science must evolve. Theories such as Chaos, Quantum mechanics, Relativity, etc., require a new paradigm(methodology, worldview, etc., after Thomas Kuhn(1962)) as a way of organizing 'reality'. However since they have not been able to formalize a system(like many before them) involving emergent(Lao-Tse(c.600B.C)- whole is not the sum of the parts) phenomena, they have instead resorted to analogies, images, examples, discussion, etc.
Cohen with Stewart appear to recognize self-reflexiveness, that content has context for example; non-identity(an abstraction, anything, etc., is not the 'same') though only through diversity- natural selection as contextual; non-allness(cannot have 'all' abstractions, anything, etc) via the fact that DNA conditionally only directly codes for protein synthesis, further not even indirectly for 'all' the characteristics of the organism, instead context(nurture; mother's genes, hormones, etc; environmental factors like temperature, etc; etc) has a major role; related to non-allness, non-universality: laws are not eternal truths but context-dependent(relative) upon our method of investigation(for 'reality' has a tendency of throwing up facts['filtered' out] that does not fit our laws);etc. Though Cohen with Stewart are not aware that our current inadequate methodology traces back to Aristotle(c.350B.C.), further that just such a Non-Aristotelian paradigm(the foregoing as part) got introduced by Alfred Korzybski(1933). Unfortunately, Cohen with Stewart finally falter with non-elementalism(interchangeable, equivalent, reversible, etc., functional[non-linear-asymmetry-non-additive], packets, etc., emergent, holism), their main thrust.
Science has tended to explain complexities(actualities: the sheer multiplication of possibilities due to the 'interactions' of huge quantities) by finding deeper underlying simplicities(the consequence of the operation of simple rules on another level: simple 'causes' produce predictable complex 'effects'), as the laws of nature, etc., such that any large-scale simplicities (from complexities) that we observe, represent the underlying simplicities(simple 'causes' produce simple 'effects', despite complexities involved) becoming visible on a higher level, for example the spiral form of galaxies. Termed 'reductionism'('atomism', 'elementalism': Latin elementum, to 'analyse', 'atomize', etc.,- divide to the indivisible parts, the non-separable, contextually interchangeable whole(s) from part(s); etc), this represented Science's greatest achievement- where the complexity of one level becomes 'analysed' to a simplicity on another level. For example, that the 'interactions' of a range of fundamental 'particles'(-waves-fields) can account for the chemical 'elements', further how they 'react', bond, etc.
However this answer is no longer convincing. Chaos theory(for example, butterfly 'effect':"sensitive dependence on initial conditions") suggests that simple 'causes' can produce complex unpredictable 'effects', for example Mitchell Feigenbaum's(1979) number, the basis of Benoit Mandelbrot's(1977) Mandelbrot fractals, etc.; different from the underlying rules. Whereas complexity(Stuart Kaufmann's Anti-chaos) theory suggests the opposite: complex 'causes' can produce simple 'effects'. Echoing 'conventional reductionist' Science current findings that inside the great simplicities of the universe we find not simplicity, but over-whelming complexity. Here Cohen with Stewart introduce the terms complicity(defined as functioning as accomplice; becoming complex) representing chaotic systems, along with simplexity(defined as "comprising a single part"; "process involving simple features arising from a system of rules") representing anti-chaotic systems.
Though 'reductionism' appears occasionally great for quantitative mathematical calculations involving content. Our understanding of external large-scale functionings remains instead mostly descriptive, geometric, qualitative, etc.,- emergence involving context. Charles Darwin's(1859) principle of natural selection for example has no agreed upon laws, equations, etc., from which natural selection can become derived. Therefore Cohen with Stewart came to realize that emergent simplicities represent structural patterns created by external constraints, that collapse an underlying sea of random fluctuation- chaos. However though holism would thus appear as the obvious alternative to 'reductionism', yet it is not what Cohen along with Stewart want: "It considers a system as a unit and often ignores its context". Nevertheless though this may appear true for example, Kurt Goldstein's(1934) "organism-as-a-whole", other formulations have intermeshed context(equivalent to Korzybski's(1933) self-reflexive premise), again from Korzybski's(1933) Non-Aristotelian system:"organism-as-a-whole-in-an-environment". But before that we had Edgar Rubin's(1915) "reversible figure(s)-ground(s)" of Gestalt 'Psychology'; which can explain for example Mandelbrot's fractal as a holistic process.
Now the problem remains as to how to formulate this emergent process. Firstly our theories as 'generalized-universals' destroy facts, therefore we must formulate them as packets of reversible content(s)-context(s) relative uncertainties. Secondly we must mathematically bridge quantitative(content) with qualitative(context) phenomena as relative uncertainties. Mathematics as the Science of patterns(otherwise function of values), is not another 'reduction' but a language with which we can gain insights into how patterns arise. However Cohen with Stewart in the end fail to see the interchangeability of functional non-additive-asymmetry-non-linearity as mathematical emergence, which finally must have blocked their understanding. Though further diverse insights may well have assisted.
Nevertheless despite these flaws, Cohen along with Stewart have made a magnificent effort, for not many would have made it as far as they have.
|
|
|
4.0 out of 5 stars
Brilliant, Sep 25 2002
I loved this book. I have never seen such a huge compilation of ideas from so many different topics compiled into one place. Not only that, but all the topics interlink to show the obvious as well as subtle connections. I especially like the fact that throughout the book, the authors manage to show numerous points of view, but without trying to force the reader to fall into any specific belief. I'll admit that not all the ideas are original in this book, but that fact is even stated within the book. For a second-year chemical engineering major such as myself, this was a real inspiration for thinking "out of the box", and really made me think about some of the "knowns" tought in science. A deffinite must. I have several friends in line to borrow this book already!
|
|
|
2.0 out of 5 stars
Disappointing, May 7 2001
By A Customer
Not terribly impressive. The first two thirds of the book offer no new ideas, the authors just rehash material you'll find elsewhere. This part of the book spends *far* too much time on the subject of evolution and DNA in my opinion, perhaps because one of the co-authors is a biologist. How about cosmology or neurology, for example - both important fields in which low-level interactions give rise to high-level emergent behaviour ?The final third of the book also fall a little flat, IMHO. The authors' grand insights seem trivial and unoriginal. One idea in particular seems to be 'borrowed' without acknowledgement from Douglas Hofstadter's amazing "Godel, Escher, Bach" : that a message and its context are inseparable (remember the dialogues with records and record players ?) I came away feeling distinctly un-enlightened. One aspect that really annoyed me is the use of the awful hybrid words "simplexity" and "complicity", used to describe two quite different concepts. Every time they're used, the reader is left struggling to remember which word is which. I wish the authors had aimed for clarity, rather than playing silly word-games. And finally, I have to mention the appalling design of the UK edition of this book. The type is far too small, and the cover (white text on bright yellow) is unreadable. There's a quote on the cover from Terry Pratchett, and his name is so prominent it honestly looks as though HE wrote the book. It is possibly the worst jacket design I've ever seen. I really admired Ian Stewart's earlier books, but my advice is to avoid this one.
|
|
|
Most recent customer reviews
|
