40
3 Broken Symmetry
3.7 Self-Organized Universe
Think again of a shepherd at the dawn of history (Sect. 1.5). Under the skies with
their orderly revolutions, his earthly surroundings are full of mysteries, bristling
with entangled forms and surprising occasions. He does not try to analyze them, he
takes them for granted. How could this infinitely complex web have arisen, with its
landscapes, plants, animals, and people? Certainly, not by itself. It might have been
created by a mighty God, the same one that set the heavenly clock in motion – or
had it always existed? The biblical account of creation (Sect. 1.1) is straightforward;
it lacks sophisticated philosophical insights, and this is why it can be seen as an
unartful paraphrase of the modern story of creation.
The monotheistic story becomes questionable when one delves more deeply into
its details. Even if God is infinitely mighty, micromanagement is not an efficient
strategy for the head of a large enterprise. The shamanic world view, with a host of
local spirits responsible for winds, waters, forests, and landscapes in their infinite
and changeable variety, could appear more natural, and not by chance it precluded
any unified outlook. This tradition remained more deeply rooted in the East, culminating in karma or Tao as vaguely defined concepts of the spiritual roots of cause
and effect determining the natural order of the eternal Universe. Lacking a supreme
manager, the world had to be self-organized,
Thinkers tangential to modern science are apt to link the ideas of self-organization
in complex systems far from equilibrium developed in the mid-20th century, also
dubbed in a more fancy way autopoiesis (self-creation), with the Eastern wisdom
(Capra, 1975; Lent, 2017). The connection is, however, merely superficial. The God
of the monotheistic tradition does not need to be involved in minute details, does
not need to take care of the way leaves are growing and blood flows in veins. It is
sufficient to set up laws and let them follow their course, which even the Creator
would not be able to predict. Complex systems are sensitive to minute details of the
environment and initial conditions and defy precise forecast, but this does not mean
that they do not meticulously obey physical laws discovered, verified in minute details, and widely applied by scientists, great and humble. The complex forms of the
Universe, or at least of the universe we are living in, both beautiful and ugly, both
dangerous and benevolent, came into being through self-organized evolution; and
broken symmetry, going far beyond the basic examples in this chapter, was a major mechanism for creating the endless variety we witness in the world around us.
Monotheistic origins fade into the image of God beheld by Spinoza and Einstein,
merging with the Laws of Physics.
The holistic attitude leads nowhere. It doesn’t allow us to penetrate into the inner
workings of Nature. Self-organization is driven not by neo-Confucian li imposing
rational order on the raw material force of qi, but by specific mechanisms determined by physical laws, even though different causes may generate similar forms.
Activators and inhibitors have nothing to do with the complementary opposite forces
of yin and yang. The analytic, versus holistic, approach, reflecting the contrast between rugged Judean and Greek landscapes and the expanse of China, and mirrored
in the contrast between first feudal and then democratic discord, and imperial unity,
3 Broken Symmetry
3.7 Self-Organized Universe
Think again of a shepherd at the dawn of history (Sect. 1.5). Under the skies with
their orderly revolutions, his earthly surroundings are full of mysteries, bristling
with entangled forms and surprising occasions. He does not try to analyze them, he
takes them for granted. How could this infinitely complex web have arisen, with its
landscapes, plants, animals, and people? Certainly, not by itself. It might have been
created by a mighty God, the same one that set the heavenly clock in motion – or
had it always existed? The biblical account of creation (Sect. 1.1) is straightforward;
it lacks sophisticated philosophical insights, and this is why it can be seen as an
unartful paraphrase of the modern story of creation.
The monotheistic story becomes questionable when one delves more deeply into
its details. Even if God is infinitely mighty, micromanagement is not an efficient
strategy for the head of a large enterprise. The shamanic world view, with a host of
local spirits responsible for winds, waters, forests, and landscapes in their infinite
and changeable variety, could appear more natural, and not by chance it precluded
any unified outlook. This tradition remained more deeply rooted in the East, culminating in karma or Tao as vaguely defined concepts of the spiritual roots of cause
and effect determining the natural order of the eternal Universe. Lacking a supreme
manager, the world had to be self-organized,
Thinkers tangential to modern science are apt to link the ideas of self-organization
in complex systems far from equilibrium developed in the mid-20th century, also
dubbed in a more fancy way autopoiesis (self-creation), with the Eastern wisdom
(Capra, 1975; Lent, 2017). The connection is, however, merely superficial. The God
of the monotheistic tradition does not need to be involved in minute details, does
not need to take care of the way leaves are growing and blood flows in veins. It is
sufficient to set up laws and let them follow their course, which even the Creator
would not be able to predict. Complex systems are sensitive to minute details of the
environment and initial conditions and defy precise forecast, but this does not mean
that they do not meticulously obey physical laws discovered, verified in minute details, and widely applied by scientists, great and humble. The complex forms of the
Universe, or at least of the universe we are living in, both beautiful and ugly, both
dangerous and benevolent, came into being through self-organized evolution; and
broken symmetry, going far beyond the basic examples in this chapter, was a major mechanism for creating the endless variety we witness in the world around us.
Monotheistic origins fade into the image of God beheld by Spinoza and Einstein,
merging with the Laws of Physics.
The holistic attitude leads nowhere. It doesn’t allow us to penetrate into the inner
workings of Nature. Self-organization is driven not by neo-Confucian li imposing
rational order on the raw material force of qi, but by specific mechanisms determined by physical laws, even though different causes may generate similar forms.
Activators and inhibitors have nothing to do with the complementary opposite forces
of yin and yang. The analytic, versus holistic, approach, reflecting the contrast between rugged Judean and Greek landscapes and the expanse of China, and mirrored
in the contrast between first feudal and then democratic discord, and imperial unity,