Scan barcode
xanderander's review
5.0
Incredibly insightful and interesting ideas- it's a really hard read but worth it!!
davidr's review
5.0
This is the type of book I like best; the author, Stuart Kauffman, describes his own research into a new field called "complexity theory". Kauffman builds simulations of lattice networks, and explores their characteristics. He shows how the simulations are analogous to chemicals combining, and may shed light on the origin of life. He claims that the simulations show that the origin of life may not have been an improbable accident, but instead may have been almost inevitable. Auto-catalytic reactions may have driven chemicals to combine and "reproduce". In other simulations, Kauffman shows how evolution through natural selection may not have depended on improbable, random mutations. Genes may be "self-organized" in such a way as to make genetic improvements a very likely occurrence. Coevolution is also discussed in some detail.
Kauffman also shows the parallels between biological and technological evolution. These parallels are quite impressive. The concepts are amazingly thought-provoking.
This is not an easy-to-read book; it is filled with simple mathematics, though there are very few equations. Sometimes I had to read a page twice to really understand it, but was well worth the effort. Interestingly, the writing style alternates between straightforward technical writing, and lyrical. This alternation gives the book a nice change of pace.
Kauffman also shows the parallels between biological and technological evolution. These parallels are quite impressive. The concepts are amazingly thought-provoking.
This is not an easy-to-read book; it is filled with simple mathematics, though there are very few equations. Sometimes I had to read a page twice to really understand it, but was well worth the effort. Interestingly, the writing style alternates between straightforward technical writing, and lyrical. This alternation gives the book a nice change of pace.
beejai's review
3.0
Spontaneous generation makes a comeback.
If you were to sum up this book in one sentence, that would be it. Stuart Kauffman, a specialist in the theory of complexity, asks a very legitimate question. In a world where nature's laws demand we move from order to disorder, why does all life evolve into ever more complex forms. He then attempts to demonstrate three things: 1) his work with autocatalytic reactions demonstrate that chemical combinations for the first generation of life was not some highly improbable event but rather a near certain inevitability (hence the first sentence), 2) there are parallels between natural biological and human technological evolution, 3) coevolution, thrives best at a specific balance between chaos and order.
Even though he acknowledges that the theories behind a lot of this book are the minority view, it does sound awfully convincing to me, I am reminded of Proverbs 18:17 "The first to speak in court sounds right - until the cross examination begins." This is not an area in which I know enough about to be able to debate him in my own mind. So my interest is peaked enough to read further that I might be able to eventually do so.
If you were to sum up this book in one sentence, that would be it. Stuart Kauffman, a specialist in the theory of complexity, asks a very legitimate question. In a world where nature's laws demand we move from order to disorder, why does all life evolve into ever more complex forms. He then attempts to demonstrate three things: 1) his work with autocatalytic reactions demonstrate that chemical combinations for the first generation of life was not some highly improbable event but rather a near certain inevitability (hence the first sentence), 2) there are parallels between natural biological and human technological evolution, 3) coevolution, thrives best at a specific balance between chaos and order.
Even though he acknowledges that the theories behind a lot of this book are the minority view, it does sound awfully convincing to me, I am reminded of Proverbs 18:17 "The first to speak in court sounds right - until the cross examination begins." This is not an area in which I know enough about to be able to debate him in my own mind. So my interest is peaked enough to read further that I might be able to eventually do so.
hilaritas's review
3.0
This book was all over the dang place, and not really in a good way. The problem is a lack of intellectual discipline on behalf of the author. Kauffman is trying to serve several masters with this book, and it ends up a mash. Not only is he giving an excited account of his academic work modeling certain types of systems which might or might not have a bearing on evolutionary ecologies, but he's also trying to extend those models to areas where he admittedly has no expertise (like technology, politics, and law) and also stating grand ontological theories of our place in the world.
His fundamental biological point is that life could be an emergent population of auto-catalyzing systems of molecular substrates and enzymes of sufficient diversity. His view is thus that life is actually almost inevitable given the mathematical likelihood of order emerging in such situations. He believes this despite the admitted failure of any laboratory to reproduce such an occurrence, but okay. He also thinks those models might, MIGHT, apply to political orders and to technological innovations, although he says over and over that he doesn't have any real basis for those views other than a hunch.
His grand philosophical aim is creating a new secular sense of the sacred in which we marvel that we are meant to be here because life is so suited to the underlying math of the universe, and that somehow this emergent quality of math is better than blind chance and the atomism of DNA (I dunno man). I admire his attempt to find some meaning beyond the clockwork god, but frankly, I don't understand what he's on about. How is a firmer case for the anthropic principle evidence of a non-mystical sense of the sacred, whatever that is? On his view, we're still random, we're just more likely to arise. And how do we know that we're not in a vanishingly rare goldilocks universe in a multiverse of dead variants?
I am not heartened that life was inevitable or slightly more likely than not, because life is a given at this point. Pushing the timetable back or weighting the dice in our favor doesn't have anything fundamental to say about ultimate purpose, because we're still either products of chance in a meaningless universe, or there is an unseen hand. He wants the math describing the universe to be that hand, but it's still just physics, not metaphysics. There's a lot of beard-stroking in this book, ultimately signifying little.
His fundamental biological point is that life could be an emergent population of auto-catalyzing systems of molecular substrates and enzymes of sufficient diversity. His view is thus that life is actually almost inevitable given the mathematical likelihood of order emerging in such situations. He believes this despite the admitted failure of any laboratory to reproduce such an occurrence, but okay. He also thinks those models might, MIGHT, apply to political orders and to technological innovations, although he says over and over that he doesn't have any real basis for those views other than a hunch.
His grand philosophical aim is creating a new secular sense of the sacred in which we marvel that we are meant to be here because life is so suited to the underlying math of the universe, and that somehow this emergent quality of math is better than blind chance and the atomism of DNA (I dunno man). I admire his attempt to find some meaning beyond the clockwork god, but frankly, I don't understand what he's on about. How is a firmer case for the anthropic principle evidence of a non-mystical sense of the sacred, whatever that is? On his view, we're still random, we're just more likely to arise. And how do we know that we're not in a vanishingly rare goldilocks universe in a multiverse of dead variants?
I am not heartened that life was inevitable or slightly more likely than not, because life is a given at this point. Pushing the timetable back or weighting the dice in our favor doesn't have anything fundamental to say about ultimate purpose, because we're still either products of chance in a meaningless universe, or there is an unseen hand. He wants the math describing the universe to be that hand, but it's still just physics, not metaphysics. There's a lot of beard-stroking in this book, ultimately signifying little.
More...