Complexity & Emergence
By Erick Laine
Erick Laine is a retired physician and health care systems executive. He has developed an in-depth explanation of The Age of Complexity, how we arrived at it, what the consequences are and how we can understand reality through the lens of this idea.
"Evolution and Limits of Complexity and Emergence" contains an in-depth analysis of the stages of evolution including human history and how understanding these stages provide the basis for understanding the significance of the recent scientific discoveries of complexity, chaos theory and emergentism.
The shorter version provides a summary.
Erick Laine is a retired physician and health care systems executive. He has developed an in-depth explanation of The Age of Complexity, how we arrived at it, what the consequences are and how we can understand reality through the lens of this idea.
"Evolution and Limits of Complexity and Emergence" contains an in-depth analysis of the stages of evolution including human history and how understanding these stages provide the basis for understanding the significance of the recent scientific discoveries of complexity, chaos theory and emergentism.
The shorter version provides a summary.
The Evolution and Limits of Complexity and Emergence: Summary
In an effort to do justice to the subject of emergence this paper covers a lot of ground that is
probably not familiar to most readers. In the interest of making it as clear and coherent as
possible I offer the following summary:
Big Questions
Human beings have struggled with the big existential questions of ontology (the study of
reality, things and beings, origins, change) and epistemology (the study of knowledge,
truth, validity) since the beginning of human history. The concept of change and the
possibility of progress is particularly interesting because, for most of human history
change and progress has not been self-evident. And even as change and progress
became obvious individual human beings continued to wonder, “Is there something
more?”
How human beings have approached these questions has been shaped by the way
societies, themselves, have evolved through human history.
Social history, human history, the history of life on earth and the history of the universe
reflect similar patterns of change across all time scales. In other words, there is a scale-
free, self-similarity through all periods of history. These patterns reflect the evolution of
complexity itself.
The phenomenon of emergence is derivative of the evolution of complexity.
However, an understanding of complex realities (and emergence) comes relatively late
in the history of human understanding. In fact, the human understanding of complexity
and emergence, in a scientific sense, is a very recent event (last several decades).
Such understanding lags the fact of complex realities.
I believe a good way to understand complexity and emergence is to follow their
evolution through the course of human history.
I use premodernity as a way of understanding modernity, and modernity as a way of
understanding postmodernity, and postmodernity as a way of understanding what I call the Age
of Complexity (the 21 st century).
Premodernity (human history up to the 16 th century) made sense of the world, and humanity’s
place in it, through beliefs in magic, myth, religion and human reason. It was believed that the
universe was created by some divine creator, that reality was immutable and change only
occurred in periodic cycles.
Modernity (16 th century to mid 20 th century)
Included the Age of Reason, Modern Philosophy, Modern Science, the Enlightenment,
Secular Humanism, Modern Liberal Democracy, Modern Liberal Capitalism, the
Industrial Age and the Information Age.
The core features of modernity are 1) a radical shift in focus, 2) a radical shift in method,
3) radical consequences.
The focus of modernity shifted from “other-worldly” to “this-worldly” concerns; from
spiritual to material matters; from divine salvation (in the after-life) to human
empowerment (in this life). It shifted from a focus on divine law to natural laws and the
application of technology to more effectively exploit nature for resources.
Modernity’s method (its modus operandi) shifted from leaps of faith and trust in God,
kings, Popes and Church to a method that put faith and trust in the human capacity to
improve its own condition. This method consisted of three steps, a) Deconstruction, b)
Analysis and c) Linear Reconstruction.
Modern Deconstruction deployed the devices of Radical Doubt (skepticism) championed
by Rene Descartes; Decontextualization (the isolation of objects from their natural
environments); Reduction (of wholes into smaller and smaller parts, of universals into
particulars); and Binary Splitting (the logical concept of the “excluded middle” that
delineated “true” or “false”, “good” or “bad”, “either”/ “or” distinctions).
Modern Analysis took various forms (philosophical, scientific, political) but all shared the
same central tenant of Secular Humanism and Modern Liberalism: That the human
individual, and none other, is the ultimate arbiter of “truth”, “validity”, “reality”, and
“value”.
Linear Reconstruction. Reconstruction refers to the way in which the parts of
deconstructed wholes (physical objects, organisms, organizations, institutions,
ideologies), once analyzed, are reconstituted back into coherent wholes. The way in
which modernity reconstructed its worldview was distinctly linear. Linearity refers to a
notion of causality and how the constituent parts of reality are related. The core tenants
of linear reconstruction are: Relations between parts are invariant (no positive or
negative change between parts as they are added or subtracted); Parts are independent
(not inter-dependent) of the whole; the Whole = the sum of its parts. Linear causality is
characterized by uniformity (the same cause leads to the same effect, and the relation
between cause and effect is constant), necessity (effects always follow from causes, no
feedback, no inter-dependence), proportionality (small causes have small effects, large
causes have large effects) and unidirectionality (cause precedes effect, effect has no
influence on cause, causes and effects are sequentially linked in a forward or backward
direction—but not both (bi-directionality). Linear reconstructions, therefore, have high
degrees of precision, are deterministic, and have infinite horizons of predictability that
increase human agency (manageability and control).
The consequences of Modernity can be characterized by its virtues and vices.
o Modernity’s virtues include the fact that its methods often worked. And when
they worked (especially in the realm of physical, material reality) they worked
better (relative to previous periods of human history) in achieving rapid
technological, economic, material advancements; in providing solutions to (at
least mitigations of) previous intractable problems (disease, famine, poverty);
and enhancing the sufficiency (awareness and agency) of the human condition.
o Modernity’s vices include arrogance (believing that what works always works);
conceptual blind-spots (Chaos, Complexity, Emergence); and the creation of new
intractable problems (social atomization, environmental exploitation and
decimation, mounting liabilities) in terms of unsustainability (individual, social,
ecological).
The Decline of Modernity is heralded by a system that was once necessary and sufficient
(16 th – 20 th centuries) to solve previously intractable problems, but eventually becomes
burdened by the intractable problems it has created. Although the tenants of
modernity remain necessary they are no longer sufficient (at the end of 20 th century) to
keep pace with very rapid rates of change that press hard on questions of individual,
social and global sustainability.
Postmodernity (late 20 th century) recognizes the failures of modernity, but does not (cannot)
solve them.
The Age of Complexity (the 21 st century) represents another “Copernican Shift” that discloses
Modernity’s blind spots. The reality of chaos and complexity can no longer be denied, nor
ignored. Chaos Theory and Complexity Theory offer new paradigms of expanded human
awareness, understanding and action. Rapid increases in technological and social complexity
set the stage for New Emergent Properties that will offer solutions to the intractable problems
created by modernity.
Complexity Theory: The Basics
“Complexity” is not the same as “complicated”. Complexity is a noun and is an attribute
of a system. “Complicated” is an adjective and reflects challenges to, or the limits of,
comprehension.
Complexity Theory (last decades of the 20 th century) departs from Modernity in its shift
of focus and methods.
Complexity’s shift in Focus.
o System Point of View. Whereas modern science has tended to isolate (de-
contextualize) the object of interest from its native environment, complexity
science sees the environmental context as part and parcel of the complex system
itself. Consequently, Complexity Theory takes a systems point of view where
“System” = the object (or entity) of interest + its surrounding and internal
environments + the boundaries and boundary conditions between them.
o Nestedness. Complex systems are often not only contextualized by their
environments, they are nested within larger complex systems. In complex
systems whole entities are often parts of larger wholes nested within one
another—like a set of “Russian dolls”. Examples include cells within organs,
organs within organ systems, organ systems within bodies; and individual bodies
within organizations, organizations within society. Nestedness is obliterated by
the act of isolation, decontextualization, and reduction.
o Focus on “Verbs” > “Nouns”. Whereas Premodernity and Modernity were
disposed to see reality as eternally fixed, Complexity Theory is disposed to see
reality as an evolutionary process. Whereas modern science tended to focus on
objects, things, and beings, Complexity Theory focuses on the structural and
dynamic relations between them.
Complex structure. Complex structure is composed of entities (e.g. things, beings,
“parts”, constituent systems). These entities must be large in number (but not infinite)
and diverse (not homogenous). Entities are inter-connected and inter-dependent (not
independent). Complex structure (large numbers of diverse entities that are inter-
connected and inter-dependent) sets the stage for complex dynamics (movement,
behavior, change, and evolution).
Complex (non-linear) dynamics. Whereas Modernity focused on linear dynamics,
Complexity Theory focuses on non-linear dynamics. The core features of non-linear
dynamics are: The relations between parts are variant (with positive and negative
change between parts as they are added or subtracted); Parts are inter-dependent (not
independent) of the whole; the Whole > the sum of its parts. Non-linear causality is
characterized by non-uniformity (the same cause may lead to a different effect, and the
relation between cause and effect is variable), non-necessity (effects do not always
follow from causes, there is feedback and inter-dependence), non-proportionality (small
causes may have very large effects, large causes may have little effect) and bi-
directionality (causes and effects have reciprocal influences and may flow in both
directions). Non-linear dynamics and the behaviors of complex systems, therefore, are
not determined by initial conditions, are not deterministic, often exhibit new or novel
properties or behaviors, and are very difficult to predict (have short horizons of
predictability). Consequently, complex system are difficult to manage and control.
The non-uniform aspect of non-linear causality (e.g. very small causes may huge effects)
is technically known as “sensitivity to initial conditions” and more commonly known as
the “Butterfly Effect”.
The behavior of complex systems. Non-complex systems (linear dynamics) are
characterized by stable equilibriums, normative behavior with statistical averages, and
standard deviations, with events that fall on a bell-shaped (Gaussian) curve. On the
other hand, complex systems (non-linear dynamics), operate “far-from-equilibrium”…
“near the edge of chaos” and exhibit new (novel) behaviors (e.g. Robustness,
Emergence, tipping points) that are difficult to predict (e.g. weather systems, stock
markets, human behavior, human societies). Events in complex systems follow a power-
law distribution curve (where one quantity varies as an exponential power of another
quantity, resulting in a skewed probability curve). Among many other unique properties
of complex systems three others deserve some elaboration; self-organization, chaos and
emergence. I will briefly describe self-organization and chaos, then elaborate on the
phenomenon of emergence.
Self-organization. Premodernity and Modernity focused primarily on top-down
(outside-in) dynamics—as evidenced in their conceptions of divine causality, natural
selection, and construction of religious, and social hierarchies. This is consistent with
the unidirectionality and determinism of linear causality. Non-complex systems do not
self-organize. Complex systems, on the other hand, exhibit the phenomenon of self-
organization (bottom-up, inside-out). In this case, relatively “simple” parts that are
inter-connected and inter-dependent, and follow a few “simple” rules (non-linear
functions) in an iterative fashion (outputs are fed back in as new inputs, repeatedly) can
produce strikingly complex structures and behaviors. Self-organization has been
observed in certain mathematical functions (e.g. Mandelbrot Set, fractal propagation),
physical systems, chemical systems, biological systems, the development of the human
fetus, organizations, human societies and computer models.
Chaos (a very brief mention). The topic of chaos is huge, fascinating and deserves
detailed elaboration. Here, however, I wish to highlight a few pertinent points. Chaos,
in the technical sense, is not the same as “randomness” (no pattern, no order). In fact
chaos has a deep (fractal) structure (order) that embodies a number of apparent
paradoxes: finite-infinities (a finite space, or structure, that embodies infinite
permutations); Ordered-disorder (disorder that periodically arises from underlying
structure and order); Determined-indeterminability (something that can be determined
at one level, or dimension, but cannot be determined, or reduced, at another level or
dimension). In the context of complex systems, domains of chaos act as portals into,
and out of, episodic transformations between thresholds of complexity. [Explained more
fully below].
Finally, we come to the topic of Emergence.
Emergence
Emergence is one of the most striking properties of complex systems. It is central to the
explanation of how the universe, life forms, and humanity (as with all complex systems)
evolve to produce “something more” than previously existed. That “something more” is
captured as wholes become more than the sum of their parts. That something more is
the difference between non-linearity and linearity. If the Whole > Sum of parts, then
emergence can be thought of as the Whole (the consequence of non-linear dynamics)
minus the sum of its parts (the consequence of linear dynamics). In other words, it is a
new, extra property of the whole itself, than cannot be reduced, analyzed, or revealed,
by looking at the structure or properties of individual parts.
In an effort to do justice to this topic I offer an approach that addresses the “What”, the
“Who”, the “How”, the “Why” and the “When” of emergence.
The “What” of emergence. The “What” of emergence pertains to its structural and
functional aspects.
o Structural emergence. Structural emergence produces nouns. Structural
Emergence refers to the sudden existence of new complex structures. These
new complex structures can take various forms (the structural “what”). Three
such forms are new thresholds of complexity, holons, and holoarchies.
New thresholds of complexity. A complex system, undergoing self-
organization of its constituent parts, may suddenly achieve a re-
configuration of those same parts that results in a new, higher-order
structural threshold of complexity.
Holons. A holon is a complex “whole” that exists simultaneously as “a
part” of larger wholes. A person in the context of a complex organization
is a holon. An organization in the context of a complex corporation is a
holon.
Holoarchies. A holoarchy is a nested system of holons. The attribute of
Nestedness (systems within larger systems, environments within larger
environments; boundaries bounded by larger boundaries) creates co-
existent layers or thresholds of complexity that are structurally distinct.
In this sense holoarchies are hierarchies. However, unlike the top-down,
pyramidal, command-and-control hierarchies so common during
Modernity, holoarchies have a much more, “rounded”, “organic”
(organism-like) structure in which the dense network of inter-
connections and inter-dependencies sets the stage for a very different
dynamic.
Within the “vertical” layers of holoarchies, one may designate any of
those levels as the “ordinate” position within the holoarchy. From that
index position one may then make reference the “super-ordinate” or
“sub-ordinate” positions. In doing so, one can identify the unique
circumstances that define the “horizontal” set of relationships between
other “ordinates” and the “vertical” set of relationships between
ordinates, sub-ordinates and super-ordinates. It is important to
understand that traditional hierarchies and holoarchies are very different
in form, function and outcomes.
Examples of nested states of complexity are ubiquitous in Nature and in
human societies. Such examples include atoms/proteins/organs/living
beings; individuals/families/organizations/communities/cities/societies;
plants/animals/humans/ecosystems/biosphere
o Functional emergence. Functional emergence produces “verbs”. Much of what
was just said about structural emergence can also be expressed in functional
terms. For example, the (functional) Whole > Sum of particular functions;
Functional Emergence = The functional Whole – Sum of particular functions.
The functional “what” of emergence takes the form of New Emergent
Properties (NEPs).
NEPs are derivative of, and accrue to, each new threshold of complexity.
NEPs are the consequence of complex structure and non-linear dynamics
As higher thresholds of structural complexity arise, so do higher
thresholds of function and behavior (properties).
Examples of emergent structures with concomitant new emergent
properties include the following: molecules, all life forms, the human
brain, human beings, organizations, cities.
The “Who” of emergence pertains to its constituents. The higher thresholds of
complexity (as discrete complex entities), holons, and holoarchies previously mentioned
can be taken as three constituent “whos” of emergence. Two additional aspects of
“who” are the number of constituents, and the diversity of them.
o Number. The number of constituent entities matters. One or two are too few.
An infinite number is too many. In certain circumstances the difference between
two and three may suffice to convert a linear system to a non-linear system.
Very large numbers prevent the formation of discrete boundaries and boundary
interfaces that help to define and differentiate constituent entities within that
number domain. This brings us back to diversity.
o Diversity. In complex systems diversity matters. Complex systems, and therefore
emergence, do not exist without diversity. Two forms of diversity contribute to
the emergence of complex systems and their new emergent properties. I refer to
them as “ontological diversity” and “ordinate diversity”.
Ontological Diversity. Ontological diversity refers to categorical
differences. They are categorically different because their structures,
functions, dynamics, behaviors are distinct. Holoarchies are vertically
integrated (nested) thresholds of complexity, consisting of constituent
parts (the “who”) in the form of ontologically diverse layers or thresholds
of complexity.
Ordinate Diversity. In this case “diversity” refers to differences-in-kind,
rather than categorical differences. Because ordinate diversity is a
difference-of-degree it displays a continuous spectrum of differences, not
a threshold or quantum (categorical) difference.
The “How” of emergence pertains to its dynamics. Self-organization, complex structure
and non-linear dynamics are three key contributors to the “how” of emergence.
Emergence does not occur in systems that do not self-organize and/or are not
structurally or dynamically complex. At this point, I wish to highlight three other
contributors to the “how” of emergence: The “messy middle”, iteration, and
transformation.
o The Messy Middle. As mentioned previously, Complexity Science redirects the
focus from “nouns” to “verbs”; from things and objects to the relations, and
dynamics that transpire between them. The “invisible” space of relations
between things and beings is where expanded forms of reality emerge. But it is
not a calm and tidy place.
The human sense of reality is so often framed in oppositional terms.
Unilateral polarities not only impoverish (isolate, reduce, break-down,
overly simplify) one’s understanding of complex realities, they defeat the
possibility of gaining the value of new emergent properties. New
emergent properties do not arise from extreme positions. They arise
from more moderate, non-absolute parameters that intimately relate to
the entities, environments and circumstances at hand.
The engine of creativity, the crucible of creation, draws on the energy of
opposing aspects that seem irreconcilable. The messy middle forges a
higher-order synthesis between different aspects of reality that at one
level seem alien—but a higher order perspective are understood to be
necessary aspects of the same thing. That thing is a higher-order
relationship, a higher-order synthesis. That thing is a higher-order
threshold of complexity. That thing is a higher-order reality. That thing is
the emergence of new properties that have the potential to unlock new
opportunities and possibilities that were previously inconceivable.
For most of Modernity extreme positions have been thought to be rare,
that the bulk of society resides in the middle; that the gravitational pull of
that center brings outliers back to it in a “regression to the mean”. This
makes perfect sense if the world is conceived only in linear terms It works
great, until it doesn’t.
In reality, society is more complex than that. In complex societies dealing
with complex realities, such a simplistic center “does not hold”.
From the perspective of complexity and emergence, such polarization
represents the entropic tendencies of an atomizing society that knows no
other way to comprehend complex realities; that has lost faith and trust
in any power greater than its own; has forgotten how to integrate large
numbers of its diverse particulars, and unlock new emergent properties
to solve intractable problems.
In complex realities the radical position is not at the extremes.
The way to emergence is through the messy middle.
o Iteration. Another feature of complexity that provides the “how” of emergence
is the process of iteration. Iteration is the repetition of a process (or function) in
which inputs produce outputs that are fed back into the system as new inputs.
The process is repeated (iterated) again and again.
In complex systems “iteration” specifically refers to the iteration of non-
linear functions. Such iteration is central to the process of self-
organization and the emergence of complex systems and new emergent
properties.
Through iteration, the opposing tensions (thesis and anti-thesis) can find
themselves in one another’s shoes, and back again, and again. Hardened
perspectives get rounded out, the gaps of alienation between them
narrow and the synthesis of apparent opposites is made possible. This
integration , this synthesis, is not a mere aggregation, or alignment of
individual parts. It is a much more intimate inter-connection that
discovers inter-dependencies. Such discovery collapses the excluded
middle. In other words, the iteration of opposing tensions are the stuff of
emergence—as messy as it may sometimes seem.
o Transformation. Transformation is one of the fundamental “hows” of higher-
order complexity and emergence. It is a critical process step that occurs in the
messiest part of the messy middle. It is a profound event sandwiched between
the chaos of an imploding system on one side, and the emergence of a higher-
order threshold of complexity (with new emergent properties) on the other.
Transformation is not a “renaissance” or some return to the “glory days”
of some bygone era.
Similarly, transformation is much more than “innovation”. Innovation
maintains the expectation of a return to normality—even if it drops the
expectation that what is normal will last forever.
Transformation is also more than revolution. Revolutions, as disruptive
as they often are, may round out the wheel, but often continue to
revolve around the same old axis.
Thomas Kuhn’s notion of “paradigm shifts” in his book, The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions (1962) comes closer to the concept of
transformation I am describing. Although he used the word “revolution”,
his concept of paradigm shift is very close to what I mean by
transformation. A paradigm shift is a radical reconfiguration of previous
understandings that is necessary to acknowledge and explain the
accumulation of “anomalies”.
Transformation is not an incremental change. It is a wholesale change, a
quantum jump. It represents a new threshold of existence, a new
threshold in complexity (being complex, being-in-the-world, being real).
It occurs abruptly like a “Copernican Shift” or during what Karl Jasper
called an “axial period”. The signature exclamation (usually expressed
with a tone of awe and wonder) of such transformation is, “Everything is
the same, yet everything is different!”
The process of transformation will be discussed in more detail below.
The “Why” of emergence pertains specifically to the value of new emergent properties.
The value of new emergent properties is this: they potentially offer solutions to
previously intractable problems.
o Each new threshold of complexity expresses a distinct set of new emergent
properties. New emergent properties are generally beneficial to complex
entities and their environments because they derive from a process of
transformation that forces solutions (see Transformation below). Consequently,
previous intractable problems, with the benefit of new emergent properties
become solvable.
o Unfortunately, each new virtue seems to have a latent vice. As previously
intractable problems are solved, higher-order complexity simultaneously causes
a new (higher order) set of intractable problems.
o Modern medicine is an example of this evolving capacity to solve previous
problems while creating new ones. The advent of modern science and modern
healthcare effectively solved a host of previously intractable problems.
o As Modern Healthcare solved previous intractable problems it simultaneously
created a host of new intractable problems, e.g. the division and proliferation of
medical specialties (and subspecialties) without sufficient integration to meet
the needs of whole bodies; the proliferation of technologies that are over
utilized; cost escalations that threaten the financial insolvency of individuals, a
social sector.
o On a larger scale, modernity effectively solved, or greatly mitigated, other
previously intractable problems: recurring famines, endemic poverty, illiteracy,
lack of knowledge, lack of transportation, lack of communication, lack of power
(physical, intellectual, individual, economic, political, social).
o Examples of new intractable problems caused by Modernity include the
following: pollution, over-consumption, malignant exploitation of our natural
resources, social solvents (skepticism, division, methodological individualism,
atomization) that exceed social glues (trust, trust worthiness), and widening gaps
between estranged partisans that evacuates the “messy middle” where real
solutions are forged.
o Human history has evolved through many thresholds of complexity. Each
transformation (personal, organizational, social or otherwise), by virtue of its
higher-order complexity and higher-order emergent properties, achieves a
higher-order state of necessity and sufficiency.
o But alas, the bloom of that success is never permanent. Its bloom fades and the
environment in which it was conceived also changes. Each threshold of
complexity has a beginning; it grows, develops, matures; it culminates; it then
declines (burdened by its accumulating liabilities), and is ultimately surpassed by
still higher forms of complexity that solve the intractable problems that it could
not.
o Because new emergent properties are derivative of the threshold of complexity
that produces them, their sophistication is latent. There is a latency between
the reality of complexity and one’s consciousness of it. Modernity, in its socio-
political and scientific ideologies, was ignorant of complexity, deploying a modus
operandi that was antithetical and blind to it.
o The latency between thresholds of complexity and a full consciousness of them
is a perpetual dilemma that only becomes more acute as higher and higher
thresholds of complexity arise. That dilemma brings us to the “when” of
complexity and emergence.
The “When” of emergence.
In this section I limit my comments to aspects of complexity
and emergence as they occur in a scale-free, self-similar pattern over time.
o Big History
Some of the scale-free, self-similar patterns evident over the 13.7 billion
year span of Big History are the following:
Evolution. The universe is evolving through successive thresholds
of complexity.
Thresholds of Complexity. These thresholds of complexity are
initially purely physical then successively chemical, geological,
biological, living, human, social and technological.
New Emergent Properties. Each threshold of complexity is
associated with unique, new emergent properties, that introduce
aspects of reality that did not previously exist.
Super-exponential rates of change. Each major threshold of
complexity occurs relatively abruptly. Furthermore, the span of
time between each threshold of complexity shortens
(foreshortening) demonstrating a super-exponential rate of
change.
These patterns exist at all scales of space and time. Whether one is
looking at patterns of cell growth, population growth, economic growth,
energy consumption, technological development, or historical events
The Evolution and Limits of Complexity and Emergence: Summary
over any scale, one finds nested curves, each one studded with
thresholds of complexity with new emergent properties.
The Pace of Change through Human History.
Asymptotic Change (Finite Time Singularities).
Implications of Big History. These new concepts reframe an
understanding of the cosmos, evolution, reality, truth, being, identity,
intention, and consciousness. It transforms an understanding of the
premodern age and modernity. Not that previous understandings are
wrong, necessarily, so much as they are incomplete.
o Big Evolution (The Evolution of Complexity).
Big History, if it is anything, is the story of Big Evolution. And Big Evolution, if it is anything, is the story of the
Evolution of Complexity.
Darwinian Evolution. Darwin’s The Origin of Species (1776), and Mendel’s
discovery of genetics, transformed human understanding of the origin of
life on earth—from a creationist concept of “a one and done” event to
one of progressive change. These two scientists were distinctly modern
in at least two ways. The first is the fact that their theories comported
with the modern notion of progress. The second is the fact that Darwin’s
theory of evolution comported with the modern notion of linear causality
as a one way street.
Co-evolution. The Evolution of Complexity and the phenomenon of self-
organization demonstrates that, the top-down forces of natural selection
are, in fact, joined by the bottom-up forces of self-organization.
Evolution should not be seen as either a top-down or bottom-up process,
it should be understood to be both. The “selector” in natural selection is
not a single entity. It is two: the environment and the organism.
Evolution, in the light of the evolution of complexity (which long
preceded the existence of life on earth), is more appropriately seen as a
co-evolutionary process.
Complex Adaptive Systems (CASs). Current literature on the topics of
evolution and complexity are filled with references to “complex adaptive
systems”. Complex adaptative systems (CASs) evolve from complex
systems as higher-order thresholds of complexity produce the new
emergent property of adaptive agency.
The Evolution of Human Agency. That fact that human agency is greater
than animal agency stems from a higher threshold (higher-order) of
complexity in the human brain. This higher-order complexity expresses
new emergent properties (abstract thinking, spatial/temporal cognition,
and predictive power) that nearly all other biological lifeforms lack. Most
significantly they add creative power to human agency.
Human beings are not merely complex adaptive systems (CASs), we are
complex creative systems (CCSs). No previous life form on earth, no
other life form currently, has the breadth and power of self-agency that
human beings do. No other life form can exercise free will, self-
The Evolution and Limits of Complexity and Emergence: Summary
determine, create objects, create artificial environments, create virtual
realities, or potentially create other life forms, like human beings do. The
term “Anthropocene” refers to the geologic deposits that human
creations are laying down. It is unlike any other period in the history of
the earth. All other life forms on earth must adapt to Nature. Only
human beings are capable of forcing nature to adapt to its force and
influence.
Trends in Big Evolution:
Non-complex systems evolve to complex systems
Linearity evolves to non-linearity
Complex Systems (CSs) evolve to Complex Adaptive Systems
(CASs)
Complex Adaptive Systems (CASs) evolve to Complex Creative
Systems (CCSs)
CCSs create more potent forms of self-agency.
Relations between evolution and complexity over time are
mutually reinforcing.
Complex systems co-evolve, co-catalyzing rates of change
o The phenomenon of super-exponential change should reach asymptotic limits
(finite time singularities). But these are not apparent. Why?
o The answer has to do with local constraints and the absolute limits on the
evolution of complexity.
The Limits of Complexity and Emergence.
The reason why the scale-free, self-similar super-
exponential curves expressed in the evolution of complexity do not culminate in finite time
singularities is because the evolutionary process is subject to local constraints and universal
limits.
Local Constraints.
o Complex systems have voracious appetites for finite resources. As long as that
appetite can be met, the curve continues to rocket upward. But eventually
rapidly escalating demands collide with the finite capacities of the entity and the
finite capacities (“carrying capacity”) of the environments in which it resides.
Both sets of finite capacities serve to “push down” on the “bottom-up” thrust of
self-organization.
o Very rapid rates of change inevitably force collisions between demand and
supply, and incommensurate states of necessity and sufficiency, states of
existence, and realities. As the entity reaches the limits of its capacities, and/or
the environment reaches the limits of its carrying capacities, the pre-existing
dynamic between the two breaks down. Entities and environments are forced to
reconcile their incommensurate needs—or not.
o These “collisions” have several potential outcomes:
Destruction (death)
Damage and decline
Reform and return to a previous state of complexity
Transformation into a higher-state of complexity.
In this article I will focus on the only scenario that evolves to higher-
thresholds of complexity with new emergent properties: Transformation.
o Transformation (revisited). When incommensurate realities collide, systems
destabilize, pass through chaos, and enter the crucible of transformation where
the binary distinctions between “inside” and “outside” break down. The events
of transformation are radical. It is tantamount to a deconstruction and
reconstruction, a re-arrangement of previous parts into new inter-connections,
new inter-dependencies—resulting in a higher-order threshold of complexity.
Transformation successfully reconciles untenable oppositions. I wish to make
two points here.
First, transformation is not a linear reconstruction.
Second, the new inter-connections and new inter-dependencies that are
forged during transformation, occur within the entity itself and between
the entity and its environment. Transformation destroys is the previously
untenable dynamic and leaves behind previous insufficiencies and
incapacities. What is gained are new sufficiencies, new capacities.
This higher threshold of complexity exhibits new emergent properties
that express new capacities that solve previously intractable problems.
These solutions represent a higher-order state of necessity and
sufficiency that accommodate the prevailing needs of the higher-order
threshold of complexity and the prevailing needs of the higher-order
environment in which it now resides.
o The Other Side of Transformation.
Emergence. On the other side of transformation the system passes out of
chaos, decelerates, and emerges as a higher-order threshold of
complexity endowed with new emergent properties. The location of
emergence, therefore, is on the “other side” of transformation.
The process of transformation culminates not in a singularity but in a
plateau of a higher-order threshold of complexity.
In the evolution of complexity this sequence is iterated again and again.
In a sense, it represents a progressive dialectical synthesis of opposing
tensions that integrates (inter-connections, inter- dependencies) large
numbers of diverse (ontological and ordinate) parts into increasingly
complex wholes (holoarchies).
o The Core Dynamic in the Evolution of Complexity.
Competing states of necessity and sufficiency, against the backdrop of
finite capacities and carrying capacities (at any given point in time and
space), is the core dynamic in the evolution of complexity. This dynamic
has a scale-free, self-similarity that drives the evolution of complexity at
all scales.
The big picture of Big History and Big Evolution, therefore, can be seen as
the progressive Evolution of Complexity (as nested holoarchies in
physical, chemical, organic, biological, living, human, and social forms). In
the evolution of complexity, at any scale, the rocketing trajectories of
would-be finite-time-singularities are, instead, “bent” into “s-shaped”
curves that stair-step up toward higher and higher thresholds of
complexity.
o Everything that has been said so far pertains to local constraints.
Local boundary conditions pertain to any single entity and its
environment.
They also pertain to the nested boundaries within holoarchies (e.g.
human body/organizations/cities/societies/ecosystems). Recalibrations
at one level force recalibrations at surrounding boundary interfaces that
ripple back and forth throughout the holoarchy.
o But this entire process has a limit. It is a universal limit that applies to all
dynamics, everywhere. The ultimate constraint in the evolution of complexity is
a thermodynamic limit.
Universal (Absolute) Limits
o The Energetics of Complexity. The evolution of complexity is, fundamentally,
energy dependent. The ultimate constraint on the evolution of complexity is due
to the fact that complex systems consume massive amounts of energy that they,
themselves, cannot produce. In other words, they are energy dependent on the
environments in which they reside. Complex systems require a constant supply
of energy from, and a flow of waste products to, external environments. Nested
environments can shuttle this energy/waste debt to larger and larger
environments. But, at some, point the cumulative debt hits a final limit.
Constraints are not limits, until those constraints can no longer be pushed off to
some other source or reservoir. At some point the energetics of complexity has
to be thermodynamically reconciled. To understand the implications of this
ultimate limit, a brief digression into the basics of thermodynamics is necessary.
o Thermodynamics.
The 1 st Law of Thermodynamics pertains to the conservation of energy. It
states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be
transformed from one type of energy to another. Total energy exists in
one of two forms: Free energy and Entropy. Free energy is a form of
energy that (for any given system) is available to do work. Entropy is the
form of energy that (for any given system) is not available to do work.
Total Energy = Free Energy + Entropy.
The 2 nd Law of Thermodynamics pertains to how all transformations of
energy (universally) occur. It states that every time one form of energy is
transformed into another, free energy decreases and entropy increases.
Always.
Entropy can also be defined in terms of order/disorder. Entropy is an
increase in disorder (less order) while “neg-entropy” is increased order
(less disorder). As a system moves from an ordered to an un-ordered
state, the entropy of the system increases. If a system moves from an
un-ordered state to a more ordered state, its entropy decreases (neg-
entropy). The move from lower order to higher order can occur only if
more free energy flows into the system.
This is the key point: Order cannot arise from a disordered state
without the addition of free energy. All systems, without the addition of
free energy, will inexorably become more disorganized (higher entropy)
with each conversion of energy (energy expenditure) within the system.
Finally, systems can be classified as thermodynamically “open”, “closed”
or “isolated”.
An open system exchanges both energy and matter with its
surroundings. Human beings and all other life forms are
thermodynamically open systems.
A closed system can exchange only energy with its surroundings,
not matter.
An isolated system is one that can exchange neither matter nor
energy with its surroundings. The only perfect isolated system is
the universe itself. Although isolated solar systems, galaxies, or
tightly closed and heavily insulated containers are
approximations.
o With this basic understanding of thermodynamics I can now return to the
ultimate limit in the evolution of complex systems.
The Thermodynamic Limit of Evolving Complex Systems
Complex systems are high-energy systems.
o They require large amounts of energy to operate, and to maintain states of
existence that are “far-from-equilibrium”. They are high wire acts that require
constant infusions of energy and matter.
o As the universe has evolved through successively higher order thresholds of
complexity the energy rate density has gotten progressively dense.
o Complex systems are energy hogs.
Because complex systems are thermodynamically open systems they are dependent on
flows of energy (and matter) from their external environments.
o They are not energy self-sufficient.
o All life forms are thermodynamically open systems. All living beings exploit their
environments for energy and dump entropy (waste energy, disorder) into them.
o Human civilizations have progressively tapped energy sources with increasing
energy density to fuel the super-exponential energy demands of increasingly
complex societies.
Complex systems appear to “defy” the 2 nd law of thermodynamics by achieving higher-
degrees of order (complex structure) and reduced entropy. But they do this by
extracting free energy from, and dumping entropy into the environment. In other
words, complex systems thrive at the thermodynamic expense of their environments.
As the universe evolves “pockets of complexity” are created “in a sea of disorder” (D.
Christian). Pockets of complexity arise only at the expense of a larger universe that is
exhausted of its free energy and burdened by increasing entropy.
In nested complex systems (holoarchies), each layer is dependent upon others for the
exchange of free energy and entropy. Each system imposes a competitive constraint on
their sub-ordinate, super-ordinate and ordinate neighbors. Each environment (and its
constituent entities) has a finite carrying capacity to subsidize the material and
energetic needs of surrounding entities and/or environments. Consequently, there is a
thermodynamic tension that constantly ripples through this nested set of complex,
dynamic relationships as surpluses and deficits of free energy are constantly transacted.
All this works quite well for at least two reasons.
o The first reason is the fact that waste from one entity’s perspective may be a
resource from the perspective of another (“One man’s garbage is another man’s
treasure”). In fact ecosystems are highly efficient in extracting energy from this
cascading waste stream.
o The other reason is because this mega system (of nested macro and micro
systems), is itself self-organizing—providing some larger domain remains
available to exploit for energy..
o The evolution of complex systems, despite the reality of local internal and
external constraints, is made possible as long as there are sources of free energy
to do the work that each entity must do (to survive and thrive) within nested
environments that are constantly utilizing the inputs and outputs of one another
and pushing the entropic debt (disorder and ultimate waste) up (out) to some
larger environment.
o As David Christian observes, “Where ever there are local flows of energy it is
possible to create complex things.” But, therein lies the rub!
At some point, all thermodynamically open systems (nested as they may) confront their
ultimate limit. Sooner or later every thermodynamically open system bumps into the
closed system that bounds it.
o The universe is the ultimate closed system (thermodynamically).
o On planet earth our biosphere is not a closed system because it receives a
constant flow of radiant energy from the sun (and some flow of energy from its
core). Those flows of energy have been relatively constant for eons—and they
have greatly exceeded the demands for free energy from evolving life forms on
earth.
o But at some point the energy-rate-density of evolving complex systems exceeds
the carrying capacity of their local environment. At some point the
thermodynamic “buck” (the cumulative entropic debts incurred) stops. At some
point a thermodynamic ceiling (the ultimate thermodynamic limit) is reached.
This is the point at which the evolution of complexity stops.
Peak Energy (the availability of free energy) = Peak Complexity.
The second law of thermodynamics imposes a scale-free, self-similar
constraint on all evolving complex systems.
At all scopes and scales within the universe the evolution of complexity
reaches the point at which free energy is exhausted and the inexorable
increase of entropy takes over.
o Such a point has never been reached during the entire evolution of complexity
on planet earth. That is because the thermodynamic limits of earth’s biosphere
have never been tapped out… until now.
o On planet earth, the fact remains that although the earth’s biosphere is huge it is
far from infinite. The unique ability of human beings to harness such energy has
allowed humanity to solve previously intractable problems. At the same time,
those solutions have created entirely new sets of intractable problems that
current systems, left to their own devices, cannot solve. Not least among these
intractable problems (waiting to be solved by higher-thresholds of complexity
with new emergent properties) is the fact that our biosphere is finite in its
capacity to carry the entropic debt it has incurred.
o Human beings, and human societies may very well be the most energy-hungry
forms of complexity in the universe. That is not a problem, per se, as long as the
supply of free energy and matter resources can keep up with the super-
exponential increases in its demand. This is where the limits in the evolution of
complexity becomes most glaring.
o This is what I refer to as “the-edge-of-the-beaker”. As ecosystems hit the edge-
of-the-beaker, so do social systems, so do communities, so do families, do
individuals.
o This part of the picture is not new in the big picture of earth and human history.
What is new is that new forms of complexity cannot solve this problem. The
crux of the human condition, at the dawn of the 21 st century, is that the most
potent solution (the progressive evolutions of complexity, with new emergent
properties, capable of solving previously intractable problems) in the form of
human society has, itself, become the ultimate problem. Humans beings, our
societies, and the “life forms” we are creating (technological and hybrid), are
malignantly exploitive of our biosphere. That is an intractable problem the
current moment in the human condition, at the dawn of the Age of Complexity,
is hard pressed to solve.
o My intent, in this basic introduction to the concepts of complexity and
emergence, has been to disclose the blind spots of previous periods of human
history and to gain a more sober understanding, in the harsh light of more
complex realities, of our present moment.
o In the pantheon of “ultimate questions” that human beings have had to
contemplate through human history, these are the most complex and acute that
have ever pressed upon us.
o The solutions to this conundrum remain available to us. But they require a
radical departure from our current modus operandi as a species.
Conclusion
My intent, in this basic introduction to the concepts of complexity and emergence, has been to
disclose the blind spots of previous periods of human history and to gain a more sober
understanding, in the harsh light of more complex realities, of our present moment.
Emergence is a real phenomenon.
It is a consequence of progressively higher thresholds of complexity in the evolution of
complexity itself. As such it is an engine of creation—bringing into existence that which
previously did not exist.
It is a creative force that is inherent in the physical, chemical, biological universe. It is
the process by which life emerged on planet earth.
It is the process by which human beings emerged from lower life forms, human
civilizations emerged from simpler forms of existence, modernity emerged from
premodernity and the Age of Complexity is emerging from Modernity.
Consciousness
o is an emergent property that is shaped by the complexity of the brain that
endows it and the complexity (scope, scale, number, diversity, inter-connections,
inter-dependencies) of its perceptions.
o Emergence helps explain how our very concept of reality is shaped,
impoverished or enhanced by what we see and what we ignore; what we can
make sense of and what remains beyond the capacity of our perceptions.
o In short, reality is relative to the complexity of the perceiver.
Emergence, in the form of new emergent properties, has the potential to offer solutions
to previously intractable problems. But as each threshold of complexity solves the
insufficiencies of its previous age, it simultaneously creates a higher-order set of
intractable problems that it, by its own devices, cannot solve. Each new age achieves a
higher state of necessity and sufficiency—relative to its predecessors—but inevitably
becomes burdened by its own liabilities. It remains necessary, but is no longer
sufficient. It is obliged to transform, or perish.
Therein lies the paradox of humanity’s present moment.
The modus operandi of Modernity, necessary and sufficient to surpass Premodern
regimes, now threatens its own existence. Its linear perceptions of reality have not
been wrong, just too narrow. A larger, more complex reality now presses down hard
upon us. As the Age of Complexity looms large the ultimate questions of humanity only
become more acute.
In the 21 st century (The Age of Complexity) the ultimate questions confronting humanity
will have less to do with the reality outside us and much more to do with the reality of
who we are as individuals and as a species.
o Our fate has less to do with the grace of God than it does with our own capacity
to save ourselves from ourselves.
o Our fate has more to do with how wholly, how completely, how realistically we
are able to see ourselves in the context of smaller and larger realities.
o The ultimate question is no longer “Is there something more?” The ultimate
question has become, “Can we live with less?” Can we limit our voracious
appetite for more, more, more…? Can we constrain ourselves and live within the
carrying capacities of our biosphere? Can we come to understand that what
needs to change, is us? Can we individually and collectively transform ourselves
fast enough to save ourselves?
The solutions to this conundrum remain available to us. But they require a radical
departure from our current modus operandi as a species. That is the ultimate question
for each and every one of us.