The self-organising universe and the evolution of evolution

Thoughts on Bobby Azarian’s 'The Romance of Reality'

Summary

Coming up in this post, I share some thoughts on ‘The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity’ by Bobby Azarian:

• How life arose from thermodynamics, and how thermodynamics provides a kind of “proto-life” and “proto-evolution”

• Why evolution is directed and progressive, and we (for now) sit at its peak

• How evolution is a process of innovation and knowledge creation, like the sciences

• Where life and evolution may take us in the future — a unified planetary intelligence? Colonizing the universe? Transcending “heat death”?

• My reflections linking this to ideas from Daoism, Panpsychism, and even a little dialectical materialism (((Marxism😱)))

Let’s get stuck in!

Life

One of the big questions the book tries to address is, 'What is life?', and 'What is the status of life in the universe?' For the first question, the answer involves looking at the thermodynamics of far-from-equilibrium systems, as studied by Ilya Prigogine.

Life is an example of a 'dissipative structure' — a form of order appearing spontaneously from chaos in a system that is far from thermodynamic equilibrium, seemingly in contradiction to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. How can this be? The key is that the spontaneous order actually works to channel and dissipate the system’s free energy more efficiently, thus accelerating the rise in total entropy. Think of how a river organises rainfall by channelling it downwards, dissipating its gravitational potential energy.

There are plenty of non-living examples of dissipative structures, from hurricanes to lightning strikes to the little whirlpool when the plug is removed from the bath. When a system is far from thermodynamic equilibrium, there is a strange tendency to self-organise in such a way as to move towards equilibrium as fast as possible. This mysterious tendency appears almost as if the matter involved were moved by some spirit, or possessed some kind of agency. It is not so crazy, then, to suppose that this might be a kind of "proto-agency" or "proto-life" from which agency/life emerged.

The closer you study dissipative structures, the more remarkable they appear. They seem even to adapt and learn from their environments. For example, when a river encounters an obstacle, it naturally redirects itself to flow around that obstacle; where the water flows most quickly and efficiently, that path is doubled down on, and where it flows slowly or ineffectively, that path is filled with sediment. If we take a more explicitly teleological view, the water is remarkably intelligent in finding the optimal path to fulfil its goal of descending towards the sea.

Photo by Nathan Anderson on Unsplash

I imagine some might baulk at calling water "intelligent", to any degree, but I think this is justified, especially as we begin calling computer algorithms "intelligent". There is a remarkable similarity between the two. We can view the river as a kind of "algorithm", testing random variations in its course, reinforcing those that serve its thermodynamic goals, and pruning those that don't, much as backpropagation does with an artificial neural network during its training. It does not mean that the river possesses a centralised brain or an immaterial mind/soul. (For the record, I do not remember the book explicitly calling dissipative structures "intelligent", although he does say they adapt and learn.)

Thermodynamic Evolution

This is an example of a kind of "thermodynamic evolution". Dissipative structures are more stable the more they manage to harness and dissipate free energy, as they are then given form and power by the very energy that might have disrupted them. Where a structure is less well adapted to harness free energy, it will be less stable and will therefore mutate until it finds a more efficient, more stable configuration.

This notion of thermodynamic evolution offers a general principle for how life might have emerged to begin with. We do not need to imagine life as an extraordinary cosmic fluke, like a jet plane assembling itself by statistical miracle, but can instead conceive of it as being itself a product of a more fundamental evolutionary principle, where nature seeks out the optimal solution to its thermodynamic challenges, and in doing so must continuously adapt, learn, and evolve. As the book puts it,

Life is not just some molecular fluke. It is a lawful planetary process that provides a solution to a chemically unstable abiotic state. In the words of their colleague at Arizona State University, Sarah Walker, ‘Life is not something that happens on a planet, it is something that happens to a planet.’

This more basic kind of evolution is an idea Daniel Dennett also explored, in 'From Bacteria to Bach and Back' (though without reference to dissipative structures or thermodynamics). Prior to evolution seeking structures that can reproduce, it stands to reason that a similar algorithmic process would promulgate structures that are better at persisting, and perhaps even at self-repairing (a possible precursor to reproduction).

Armed with this more general notion of evolution, we are also enabled to look at evolution beyond the level of genetics and reproduction. We do not need to be limited to viewing evolution solely through the lens of genetics (or memetics for that matter). We might apply this principle to the development of multi-cellular organisms, ecosystems, or complex societies. The basic principle is that all things are seeking stability/harmony with the powers that threaten to undermine them.

Evolution, Progress, Knowledge Creation, and Popperian Science

Contrary to a certain orthodoxy within biology, Azarian presents evolution as a directed and progressive process that actively drives towards greater adaptability, intelligence, and consciousness. One reason for this is that the process of evolution builds upon itself. Like with our technology, each evolutionary innovation lays the groundwork for later innovations, both in providing the technology to make them possible, and in creating the circumstances that drive demand for further innovation. E.g. the innovation of multi-celled life paved the way for all the animal and plant life we see today, and evolutionary arms races drove the development of sensory-motor capabilities via the struggles between predator and prey.

Essentially, evolution can be viewed as analogous to scientific progress, as understood through Karl Popper's philosophy of science¹: finding solutions to a series of problems, with each solution opening up new problems in need of solving. Each one builds upon the discoveries and knowledge of the previous investigations, even where it may also involve radical departures.

Genetic mutation plays the role of scientific conjecture, while the creature’s life plays the role of the experiment, and death (of a lineage) plays the role of falsification of a theory. A creature's DNA, then, plays the role of the accumulated body of ideas/beliefs/knowledge that have yet to be experimentally falsified. This point is summed up with a nice “rhyming equation”:

Adaptation = Statistical Correlation = Mutual Information = Model Optimisation = Knowledge Creation.

Seen in this way, evolution should logically be just as progressive in nature as the progress of science and technology, with discovery and innovation building upon discovery and innovation, and accumulating knowledge and causal powers at an ever-accelerating rate. And if we look at evolutionary history, that is exactly the picture we see. Life progresses through a series of innovations, from prokrayotes through eukaryotes, multi-celled life, photosynthesis, sexual reproduction, skeletons, sensory organs, intelligence, tool use, language, writing, etc.

This view of evolution as tending towards ever greater adaptability, intelligence, and consciousness also rediscovers a special role for humanity in evolution. We are (for now) the high point on this evolutionary trajectory. Humanity is special among animals, in a similar way to how living things are special among material objects. And we are the point at which the evolutionary trajectory is accelerating most rapidly: wia science, technology, language, and our incredible capacity for cooperation, we are transforming our lives, our physiology, and our environment at an unprecedented rate.

We can view all of this as evolution evolving more evolution. A kind of meta-evolution. Language, intelligence, consciousness, science, and technology are all ways we have evolved to implement further evolutionary processes and greater adaptability within ourselves as individuals and as societies.² As Alfred North Whitehead put it, “The purpose of thinking is to let the ideas die instead of us dying.”

‘Poetic Meta-Naturalism’

The worldview proposed in the book is dubbed ‘poetic meta-naturalism’. This name does well for being evocative, but also neatly captures the heart of the ideas.

The “naturalism” is because nothing that’s suggested involves any kind of immaterial or “supernatural” entities. There’s no gods or ghosts. Actually, the book takes a fair few jabs at religion as it goes, and often in ways that are unfair and misrepresent the relevant history. But Azarian is not a historian, and we’ll let it slide.

The “meta” is because it goes beyond what we might call “mere” naturalism, by fully embracing the reality of emergent and evolved phenomena such as life and minds, that cannot be reductively explained by looking at the level that produced them.

And the “poetic” is because, while evolution doesn’t repeat itself, it does rhyme. The patterns that emerge at one level of reality will often appear again at another level. For example, the Popperian structure of evolution and of science, discussed above.

The name also gives the image of a worldview that is based in nature, and thus in science, but transcends “mere” naturalism towards a more poetic, romantic, perhaps even spiritual, vision. This is something touched on in the book, but not explored at depth. But he does suggest we take the ideas of the book as some of the building blocks for a new kind of spirituality, taking the best from earlier spiritual traditions, but correcting them and aligning them with the latest science.

The Future

The book also looks to the future and projects what we might expect for the future of life and of minds.

One prediction is that humanity will become more and more integrated, perhaps eventually becoming a single super-mind or "noösphere" (borrowing the phrase from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin). Just as single-celled organisms joined together to form multi-celled life, our forming societies presents the beginning of a similar process that may result in the emergence of a planetary super-organism, with intelligence and powers far beyond the sum of its members.³

And what beyond that? The universe is the limit! Our knowledge and technological capabilities may continue expanding at an ever faster rate. Our creation of artificial superintelligence, augmentation of our own minds, and formation of a planetary super-mind may open up new worlds of possibility, perhaps not even conceivable from our current vantage point. Azarian is not afraid to say it is our destiny to go and spread life across the universe.

Another point he considers is the "heat death" of the universe. Surely, even if the emergence of life and minds is the universe's cosmic destiny, it all ends up as worth nothing at the inevitable heat death of the universe, right? Entropy wins in the end. But Azarian holds out hope even here. He notes that as evolution has progressed, life has found ever more ingenious ways of extracting free energy, as well as using it more efficiently. Between the limits of computational efficiency and the potential for new sources of energy, such as dark energy and the energy of mass⁴, he is not willing to give up on the possibility of life/mind somehow transcending the heat death of the universe.

This is all, naturally, far more speculative and less well grounded than the rest of the book. How could it not be? But I think it is valuable for us to speculate wildly about the future. It may excites us and give us hope, and move us to think and act in light of these exciting possibilities.

My Thoughts

Mechanism vs Process

The way nature harnesses and redirects free energy in dissipative systems, calls to my mind the Daoist concept of wu wei, "effortless action".

Sinologist Jean François Billeter describes wu-wei as a "state of perfect knowledge (understanding) of the coexistence of the situation and perceiver, perfect efficaciousness and the realization of a perfect economy of energy".

In fact this whole vision of thermodynamics and life feels remarkably Daoist to me. The whole thing comes down to “the flow of energy” through the universe, with the interplay between conflict and harmony giving rise to the shifting, adapting world we see around us. It is close to sounding like a philosophy of martial arts.

Image from ‘Drunken Master’

The book does not lean into this, and instead emphasises that all of its explanations are mechanical. I think this is a mistake. We can choose to impose the mechanical philosophy upon the emerging scientific picture, but at this point, why should we? It is not superior as metaphysics, and it is not superior as science. The picture that emerges from the science in the book is not of a mechanistic world, but of a world that is fundamentally evolutionary, dynamic, and in process. It is much more easily aligned to a Daoist, Heraclitean, or process philosophy vision of nature than a mechanical or Democritean vision.

Panpsychism

The book’s vision of the universe as both Darwinian and Bayesian through and through lends itself nicely, I think, to a certain kind of panpsychism. Not just in terms of “experience” or “consciousness”, but in terms of beliefs and processes of updating those beliefs being present throughout nature. Dennett’s idea of “free-floating rationales” is similar.

If we wish to understand how mind might have emerged from matter, without invoking any sudden miracles, we are going to need to find mentality, to varying degrees, already present within matter. Even if we wish to say that all mentality is an illusion, we should expect that illusion to emerge gradually and with precursors, rather than miraculously and all at once.

Dialectical Materialism

I think there’s also a strong similarity between this understanding of thermodynamics and evolution and Marx’s dialectical materialism. Azarian speaks of dissipating free energy and solving problems, leading to new forms of order and phase transitions, while Marxists speak of progressive resolution of “contradictions” — are they talking about the same thing? Can we view the Marxist view of history as a thermodynamic/free energy view of history? Can revolutions be understood as phase transitions? They also both share the belief that humanity will eventually achieve a global and (relatively) harmonious unity.

I do not know very much about Marxism, so I cannot speculate much further on this point, but it seems like a promising connection.

---

What are your thoughts?

• If you’ve read the book, what did you think of it? If you haven’t, are you now interested in reading it?

• Is evolution progressive? Does it have a direction or tendency?

• Do science and evolution work by the same Popperian principles?

• Is mechanistic reductionism more valuable than I give it credit?

• Are we evolving towards the noösphere?

• Does ‘poetic meta-naturalism’ offer a potential for a scientific spirituality?

Let me know in the comments!

1. Popper’s philosophy of science is today popular among scientists, but less popular among philosophers of science. There are good reasons for that, particularly that if taken too rigidly, it just doesn’t fit how science actually works in practice and historically, and would have led to prematurely abandoning good theories. But I do think his characterisation of science as an evolutionary process is correct as a broad strokes characterisation. It may be a caricature of science, but a caricature is good precisely because it captures a thing’s essence.

2. Another example of meta-evolution, which I found in Paul Davies' book 'The Demon in the Machine: How Hidden Webs of Information Are Solving the Mystery of Life', is that cells have shown the ability to modulate their own rate of genetic mutation in response to environmental challenges, and even target which areas of the genome to "dial up" or protect against mutation.

3. I discussed something similar in 'The Mind is a Corporation of Neurons', where I looked at the way corporations act as a single organism with knowledge and abilities beyond the sum of its members’.

I also discussed the idea of a collective mind in this post on Christof Koch’s book ‘The Feeling of Life Itself’.

4. Recall that E = mc², from the theory of relativity.