Customer Reviews

The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I feel somewhat presumptuous and impertinent writing critical words about a book written by an author like Harold Morowitz. He's a man with impressive credentials including once having been editor of the journal Complexity and now on the Science Board of the Santa Fe Institute. And there are glowing comments on the book jacket--stunning, provocative, and brilliant-from the likes of highly respected John Holland. Nonetheless, here is my reaction as a layperson who's read many of the popular books on emergence, complexity, etc.

First, some positive comments. Morowitz has written numerous books. He appears to have a vast knowledge of physics, biology and early western religious beginnings and in this book he provides a sweeping view of, well, everything! His most interesting insight: the far-reaching explanatory power of the Pauli exclusion principle. Morowitz also comes across as likeable and humble, the latter being a characteristic that is often lacking in the authors of other "complexity" books as previously noted by several Amazon reviewers. In fact, Morowitz seems likeable enough that I offer my apology for any personal offense he might take.

On the less than positive side, I found the book "stunning" all right, but probably not in the way the publishers intended. The book is as much about "religion" as it is emergence. And I don't mean the emergence of a new kind of spirituality that arises out of discoveries in complexity theory. I mean old fashion Judeo-Christian religion. There are numerous pages of discussion of early Christian thinking and an extensive apologia for the Jesuit paleontologist, and Morowitz's role model, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (p. 15). The reader is also treated to passages like the following:

"Note that God's transcendence was not meaningful before the emergence of humans and human culture. Violation of the natural law is only meaningful to individuals capable of knowing natural law. Divine transcendence arose from immanence and emergence and coevolved with Homo sapiens. Transcendence is an emergent property of God's immanence and rules of emergence. We Homo sapiens are the mode of action of divine transcendence." (p. 195)

I have nothing against such talk and on occasion even enjoy it. But I find Morowitz's to be particularly parochial in his views. It's as if he is trying to come to terms with his personal scientific career and his own traditional religions training, with us as an audience. On more than one occasion he even offers up quotes from the Pope. If he was intending a thorough discussion of how the emergent mind may evolve into spirituality he should have presented at least a cursory overview of eastern religious thinking, particularly Buddhism with its heavy emphasis on the study of the mind's workings. After all, the Dalai Lama's hobby is modern physics. Morowitz's explanation for this deficiency, "We all have out limitations" (p. 17). Stunning! What's also stunning is Morowitz broad-brush characterization of atheists as those who slavishly maintain that emergent "choices" are merely random and then become frozen accidents (p. 198).

On page 197, Morowitz admits that his purpose has been theistic. "This book has proceeded with two agendas: to study emergence by examining a number of examples, and to seek for the nature and operation of God in the emergent universe." And on the next page he says, "We are just beginning our understanding of emergence, and hence must be patient about understanding how the Word becomes flesh". But these kinds of ideas are not noted in the promotional material provided by the publisher, Oxford University Press. Perhaps Oxford is just trying to jump on the "complexity fad". Maybe I should have realized that the "everything" in the title was a code word for discussing the emergence of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, the Word, etc. Foolish me.

And finally, a small part of Morowitz's discussion seem to come dangerously close to what amounts to an emergent version of social Darwinism (pp. 147-154). For example, he uses Gause's Competitive Exclusion principle to explain the conflict in Northern Ireland as two "psuedospecies" attempting to maintain their separate niches or, in the alternative, kill each other off. Morowitz's "most humane" solution: encourage interbreeding (p.152). Maybe an interesting notion but one that is provocative enough to require a much more rigorous analysis than that offered by Morowitz.

If you want a book that looks to early philosophers and religious thinkers in order to explain how science and religion interact, this book may be for you. Morowitz even welcomes a return to Scholasticism (p. 191). If you want to see how a scientists tries to synthesize everything from the Big Bang to the Trinity with the modern vocabulary of emergence, this also might be for you. The book reminds me of an interdisciplinary undergraduate course requirement at a small religious school-a kind of "we put God in every subject" approach. Those inclined toward Creationism of the Intelligent Design variety will like this book and quote from it. With the exception of this review, I likely won't.

This is a relatively small book with a huge message. It deals with complex, sophisticated theories - some explained clearly; others such as the emergence of metabolism, not so clearly despite Dr. Morowitz's efforts. It is written at a scholarly level - at least at the undergraduate level - as evidenced, for example, by his syntax and the technical lexicon he employs, often without definition.
Dr. Morowitz's premise is that at the dawn of the 21st century "we now see the world through the fresh perspective and understanding of the computer revolution and the study of complex systems...[and] this new mode of thinking has begun to develop an exciting explanatory concept designated emergence, which develops previously unrealized ways of deepening our understanding of the past eons and illuminates how the universe, after a long and complex 12-billion-year trajectory from the Big Bang, has given rise to the human mind and modern man" (pg. 16). Classical science is based on reductionism and theory formation that work their way back up to the world of observation. I disagree from the review from Scientific American that emergence is the opposite of reductionism; rather, emergence supplements and complements reductionism, taking it to a new level. It essentially is the realization - the study - that the whole is often greater than the sum of the parts (pg. 23); that is, the system or process that emerges is something more than would have been expected by the study of the constituent parts.
Dr. Morowitz selected 28 examples of "observed instances that have emergence in common but vary over an enormous range...selected to form an almost linear chronological sequence from the beginning of the universe we now occupy toward a conscious grasping for the future, a search for spirit, or something in that domain" (pg. 25) - in other words, a grand tour from the beginning of our universe towards what our species is to become. This is a heady undertaking, to be sure, and Dr. Morowitz is up to the task.
He first steps through the 28 examples ever so briefly in order to provide an advance summary. He then takes us through them in more detail with a chapter devoted to each. Some are straightforward and easy to grasp, such as numbers 3/the emergence of stars and 4/the periodic table; but others are complex and abstruse, such as numbers 10/cells with organelles and 11/multicellularity. He provides plenty of supplemental reading along the way with suggestions at the end of each chapter.
What we see from his 28 groupings is that existence, as we know it, stretching from the Big Bang into the future as far as our minds can visualize, has been and continues to be one continuous emergence - what one might call a mega-emergence. We can segment it however we like (he segments it 28 ways), but it doesn't change the fact that from the Big Bang there is no known way to predict what has come to be and what is yet to come.
While some of the concepts are difficult to grasp, Dr. Morowitz is still a delight to read. He uses language wonderfully - precise, concise, and descriptive. Take for example, "Toward the end of the accretion period, the Earth was still occasionally subject to large meteoritic impacts that boiled away the oceans into cloud layers that subsequently precipitated" (pg. 70), or "Among the reptiles of the Pennsylvania Age of the upper Paleozoic, courtship ritual and sexual selection emerged...[which] was the beginning of a type of behavior that culminated in the dramas of Shakespeare" (pg. 125). Cool.
He weaves a great thread about the development of animals through numbers 13/animalness, 14/chordateness, 15/vertebrates, 16/crossing the geospheres - from fish to amphibians, and 17/reptiles. ("Geospheres"? That's number 10.) After he discusses the emergence of 18/mammals, but before he moves on to 19/higher mammals he sets the stage by discussing the definition of species and the concepts of niches and the principle of competitive exclusion. He applies the latter to human social behavior as one basis for cultural and ethnic friction, but with a twist. "In a battle between hominid species, the victors kill the vanquished. In battles between hominid races, the victors breed with the vanquished. The difference is a flow of genes between the groups." (pg. 153.) From there he finishes with 23/toolmaking, 24/language, 25/agriculture, 26/technology and urbanization, 27/philosophy, and 28/the spirit.
Where does he see this thread taking humanity? "Two new futuristic views have developed in recent years. The first of these argues that carbon-based life will be the precursor of silicon-based life that, because of potentially superior intelligence, will ultimately take over, with humans either eliminated or in a secondary role. [Perhaps this is where the concept for the Wachowskis' The Matrix originated?] ...The second futuristic view is a world in which genetic engineering is used for us to become the race of hominids we want to be." (pg. 177.) Dr. Morowitz opts for the latter. "I assume that something new will emerge in human society, and it will present us with undreamed possibilities in science and the arts...There will be a new emergence, and we will play a part in what that emergence is. That is our destiny." (pg. 178.)
Dr. Morowitz has an amazing tale. It's difficult to follow many of the details, but overall it is upbeat and optimistic. Time will tell. In the meantime, this is an excellent read if you want to start towards an understanding of the cutting edge of science, where it blends with religion and philosophy.

While the concept of emergence is quite interesting, this book lacks enough depth to really cover the material in a meaningful way. The book is more a collection of brief essays on various topics, and does provide a useful overview of the topic.

However, the same material in a more masterful writer's hands could have been a fascinating work. Each of the chapters only contained a skeletal outline of the emergent behavior, with nothing to flesh it out. Because the facts were so sketchy (and often amounted to prose hand-waving) I wasn't always convinced that the arguments were sound.

In the last few decades, there have been more and more scientists stepping out into the realm of philosophical thought and tossing in their two cents regarding important metaphysical questions. On the whole, this is a good, encouraging trend.

Yet, it is becoming too predictable that a philosophy book, written in the vain of science, will undoubtedly be strong in the latter, and fall so short in the former: Morowitz's "Emergence of Everything" is yet another testament to this trend.

I do not want to be too harsh, as there are some things this book does well, so I will focus on those first.

"Emergence of Everything" discusses the new trend in scientific thinking to group things into wholes rather than seperate them into parts. This trend was realized in philosophy by the Idealists showing roots in Plato, but taking life with Kant and primarily Hegel.

He then launches into a so-called "brief history of everything;" how evolution has transpired since the beginning of the cosmos until present day. The scientific explanations are quick, sometimes dense, but well-described. He leaves nothing out--including social sciences into latter day evolutions. And in the end even tampers with some spiritual implications. My point: the overview itself is satisfactory... even well-done I suppose.

Unfortunately, that IS basically all of the book's merits. It ends there: just a string of cosmological and historical observations. Despite explicitly calling his own book a "philosophical treatise" he lends no thought, analysis, or anything beyond questioning of the form, patterns or causes of specific evolutions or emergences. Most references to philosophy are more theological than philosophical, and he regularly refers to metaphysical phenomena with vague labels such as "God's Mind."

The book is a great description of the ontological and scientific occurences of our universe's evolution, but all deeper meaning is lost. The bridge he tries to erect is admirable, but typically it has been much sturdier starting from the other side. The theoretical side of this book has been explored more thoroughly by systems theorists', scientists such as Heisenburg and Schroedinger, philosophers from Whitehead to Hegel, Schelling, and even contemporary writers like Habermas and Wilber.

Only worthwhile for its crash-course scientific chronology--even then, you'd be better off with more focused works.

The Emergence of Everything is a thoroughly researched, highly intelligent treatment of a fascinating subject. But this densely composed treatise is not for everyone. In my opinion, Dr. Morowitz's book would especially reward readers who already possess a solid background in the history and philosophy of science. Others may find themselves in over their heads. For those interested in this intriguing phenomenon who are looking for a more accessible introduction to the topic, I would recommend Steven Johnson's well-written, comprehensive 'Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software.'

Motowitz's monumental book outlines 28 examples of said emergence, ranging from the making of our nonuniform universe, the emergence of stars and the elements of the periodic table, the solar system, planetary structures, universal metabolism, prokaryotic life, eukaryotic life, multicellular organisms, animals, humans, mind, philosophy and spirituality.

At each level of emergence there may be agents that interact with their neighbors, not necessarily Darwinian interaction but some kind of interaction. Agents that find themselves to be successful are then latter discovered to be necessary for latter steps in the emergence, and their success is found as agents comply to what Morowitz calls a "pruning rule". The Darwinian selection principle, permitting agents to leave the most offspring as they are found to be fittest from natural selection, is such a pruning rule. The Pauli exclusion rule is a second example that Morowitz gives. The exclusion principle restricts the electron cloud that surrounds the natural elements (in our periodic table) in such a way that chemistry and bonding properties emerge from quantum mechanics; properties that are discovered to be necessary for life as we know it.

On page 101 Morowitz writes:

"...in our discussion of the Pauli exclusion principle we dealt with the restriction that no two electrons in a structure can share the same four quantum numbers - presumably four quantum numbers because of the four dimensions in formulating the Schrödinger equation using relativistic quantum mechanics. This principle does not come from dynamics of the problem, but from the symmetry requirements on the solutions.... Because of the non-dynamical feature, several physicists and philosophers of science detect a kind of noetic feature deep in physics"

Morowitz points to this noetic quality in several places. Continuing on pages 101 to 102 he writes on the first recognized example of life-based behavior found in prokaryotes:

".... Somewhere in bacterial evolution, motility appeared. The operative structures are flagella, which rotate, propel the cells. A number of cases were discovered in which cells in a gradient of nutrients swim toward higher concentrations, and in a gradient of toxins swim toward lower concentration. The mechanism is somewhat indirect. Periodically the swimming cells randomly switch directions. In a favorable gradient they change less frequently, and in an unfavorable gradient they change more frequently. They are letting their profits run and cutting their losses. For a population of cells, this leads to a fit behavioral repertoire. The behavior looks causal, but the endpoint looks teleological. It requires sensing the environment, concentration versus time, and responding to the time gradient, which is also a space gradient, since the organisms are swimming. I think it is important to look at these hints of cognitive behavior as they appear."

Regarding the mental or noetic aspect of all animal life, on page 138 Morowitz writes:

"... There is currently a reexamination that argues that mental activity is universally distributed through the animal kingdom and perhaps in other taxa down to the unicellular eukaryotes. Psychologist Donald R. Griffen has gathered a great deal of evidence in the book Animal Minds and argues for the universality of cognition.... I see the grand dawn of the emergence of reflective thought."

Morowitz describes the Principle of Competitive Exclusion (previously studied by Alfred Lotka, Vito Volterra, and Charles Elton), as a pruning rule that implies "... the impossibility of two species occupying the same niche in a steady-state ecosystem". For Morowitz this principle stems from Darwinian selection, but it has unsavory consequences as it affect social aspects of humanization. He writes of the principle that "... humans, having reflective thought and the power of choice, are not bound to living out a set of mathematical relations". In chapter 26, Morowitz gives accounts on how the Principle of Competitive Exclusion can be studied and used as a tool to avoid the unsavory qualities of ourselves (including prejudices and examples of genocide) that emerge from the principle when we unknowingly back into it.

Morowitz did not notice that the Principle of Competitive Exclusion has a shadow principle, that I will name the Principle of Cooperative Inclusion. Nevertheless, this shadow principle has a noetic quality that Morowitz has grown fond of. It is such a teleological principle that says that hate will destroy itself when it is forced to coexist with the inclusion brought by love. And so my friends we hold onto the angry tension, not by competitive exclusion but by cooperative inclusion. A better world will unfold as hate ranges war with its own angry shadow; the catharsis will expunge our prejudices. You may read about it in my book, Trinity.

Morowitz has many kind words for Teilhard de Chardin. On page 175 he writes: "... I see the World Wide Web as a reification of instantiation of the noosphere and consider Teilhard as an even more prescient thinker. Human thought is collective."

Disclosure: My agenda is declared in my profile.

This books presents a good *description* of a number of complex systems found in Nature. For me, it did not present a clear explanation as to *how* or why these systems became or are seen to be complex. A more honest title for me would be "Complex systems found in Nature - A description." I also agree with the previous reviewer who commented on the mixture of science and theology in the book.

Morowitz has written a wonderful book, and filled a (much-needed) niche in the growing population of books on emergent systems: this book synthesizes emergent systems at nearly every level of analysis, making this book stand out in a crowd of books that cover only specific topics. Lucid writing and clear examples go a long way towards making this the most readable book on emergent systems to date. I was left wanting more! Bravo, Dr. Morowitz.

I have always thought that the word emergence, as used to "explain" novel characters in the physical, especially the biological world, was meaningless. Reading Professor Harold Morowitz's extended praise of the concept, I am sure of it.

Morowitz would elevate it to a new principle of scientific understanding of itself, while it is merely a marker of events. He writes brief descriptions of 28 (out of perhaps uncountable) emergences.

For example, it is an emergence when clouds of hydrogen collapse and gravitational heating initiates fusion to helium. Morowitz regards this as antireductionist, but it's hard to see why. So far as we know, nothing else can happen.

But Morowitz imagines that an infinity of outcomes must be assumed, and therefore there must be "pruning rules" to reduce them. This is as meaningless as emergence.

In the many-worlds hypothesis, perhaps hydrogen clouds collapse without initiating fusion, but that idea -- non-emergence? -- is as meaningless as emergence. Stuff happens. We observe.

The situation does become more complex once life arises. Morowitz has been a leading investigator of biogenesis, focusing on the property -- mediated by molecular interforces -- of some organic chemicals that arise from the non-living development of cosmic chemistry to shape themselves into vesicles and sacs which sometimes have the property of permeability, thus segregating other organic chemicals into different concentrations.

Perfectly reductionist. If life emerges, then how is that not also reductionist? What do we need for some additional principal called emergence?

Over the years and books, I have been less and less impressed with Morowitz, who seemed to give hints at mysticism. In "The Emergence of Everything," the mysticism is unleashed. The most cited author is the absurd priest Teilhard du Chardin and his preposterous "Phenomenon of Man."

Teilhard meant, of course, the phenomenon of god, except that god is not a phenomenon. After spending most of the book saying that scientists should not reject teleology out of hand, in a chapter called "The Spirit" Morowitz tries to save the appearances, as the mystical astronomers used to say, by a feeble trick:

"Teilhard has a more teleological view of a new and final state. At this point, I neither understand nor follow him." Too late. You cannot be only a little bit teleological. It's all or nothing.

In the previous chapter, "Philosophy," Morowitz makes a wholly unconvincing play to rescue a place for reductionism -- and thus his own standing as a scientist/philosopher:

"Reduction and emergence are tools by which we try to relate the mind of the philosopher to the minds of the cognitive psychologist andf the neurobiologist. It is a remarkable circle of understanding." Except that it isn't. Every one of the 28 emergences he chooses to write about was explicated -- to the extent that any of them has been -- by the reductionist program. Waving the arms and shouting, "Emergence!" contributed nothing to it.

I was tempted to think that Morowitz wrote all this as he descended into his dotage and, like some materialists, cringed at the void. But he was only 75 when he published "Emergence" in 2002; and, as I said, he had presaged hints of a mystical conception of the universe in essays written as far back as the `80s.

If not quite inexplicable, I find it disappointing.

But wait, as they say in the TV ads for miracles, there's more. Morowitz, unduly impressed by the power of computational programs to work out the details of the molecular interactions that were the subject of his experimental work, imagines that computers somehow will inject meaning into his empty concept of emergence.

How is not said, but the proven incapacity of high-speed computation to model economics or earth climate should make anyone skeptical of their ability to explicate the universe, which -- we may imagine -- is a whole lot more complicated.

Let me preface this review by asking if you have ever heard of cellular automata, Stephen Wolfram, or Conway's Game of Life? If all this is new to you, then this may be exactly the book for you.

For the rest who know at least a little about the subject, this book is a waste of time for the two following reasons. First, by attempting to cover alot, the book covers nothing. It ties together ideas so broad, it's possible to make an argument (pro or con) for just about any idea in the universe.

The second weakness is possibly even more severe. After investing my time and money in a book, I want to be taken somewhere that I was not at when I started. This book is entirely lacking in any useful, practical information on how to use the ideas of emergence. In other words, what are the next steps that I could take as a reader to explore these ideas? If the author is not going to give me any ideas about how to use the great ideas of emergence, perhaps he could at least tell me what others are currently doing or where I could go to do actual hands-on with emergence.

After reading this book, my hands-on only leave me with hands full of fluff.