From - Thu Apr 17 14:32:47 2003 X-Mozilla-Status: 0000 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: carl@andisplanet.com Received: from mail0.u-aizu.ac.jp (mail0.u-aizu.ac.jp [163.143.1.43]) by andisplanet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF8B91102 for ; Mon, 20 May 2002 05:54:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from stdml3.u-aizu.ac.jp (stdml3.u-aizu.ac.jp [163.143.3.63]) by mail0.u-aizu.ac.jp (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6/u-aizu internet-gw) with ESMTP id g4KCgG118062; Mon, 20 May 2002 21:42:16 +0900 (JST) Received: from ggpl.org (cal14 [163.143.133.114]) by stdml3.u-aizu.ac.jp (8.9.3+3.1W/3.7Wistcmx+kanji) with ESMTP id VAA27149; Mon, 20 May 2002 21:42:11 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <3CE8EDDF.26A139B@ggpl.org> Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 21:36:48 +0900 From: Carl Vilbrandt Organization: Greater Good Public License Organism X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carl Vilbrandt , Carl Vilbrandt , George Dafermos Subject: INTERVIEW: Ilya Prigogine (May 1983) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------4E5619976661463CC0B09C4D" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------4E5619976661463CC0B09C4D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Noble prize winner...... Prigogine thinks society can begin to investigate cultural and social change in dialogue with science. and business plans. http://www.omnimag.com/archives/interviews/prigogin.html --------------4E5619976661463CC0B09C4D Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1; name="prigogin.html" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline; filename="prigogin.html" Content-Base: "http://www.omnimag.com/archives/interv iews/prigogin.html" Content-Location: "http://www.omnimag.com/archives/interv iews/prigogin.html" INTERVIEW: Ilya Prigogine (May 1983)
3D"=

Interviewed May 1983 by Robert B. Tucker

On a wall in physical chemist Ilya Prigogine's office at the University o= f Texas at Austin is an Albert Einstein quote, blown up to poster size. "= For us believing physicists," it reads, "the distinction between past, pr= esent, and future is only an illusion, however persistent." The poster is= one of the few personal effects in a room of austere, university-provide= d furniture (Prigogine is in Austin only three months each year), and its= presence is symbolic. To Prigogine, time is the forgotten dimension; his= lifelong efforts have been directed toward better understanding its role= in the universe. In recent physics, time has emerged as a central theme = in several major areas of inquiry, from the instability of elementary par= ticles to the problem of irreversibility in both living and inanimate sys= tems. Prigogine's contributions have come largely in irreversibility, or,= as Prigogine calls it, "the arrow of time." =

In 1977, after traveling on the outskirts of scientific acceptance for ne= arly 20 years, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry, largely for h= is theory of dissipative structures. "Prigogine has fundamentally transfo= rmed and revised the science of irreversible thermodynamics," noted the N= obel Committee in making its announcement. "He has given it new relevance= and created theories to bridge the gap that exists between the biologica= l and social scientific fields of inquiry." =

Ilya Prigogine's background may have been as tumultuous as his effect on = the scientific community. Born in Moscow at the outbreak of the Russian R= evolution, Prigogine and his family fled, first to Lithuania, then to Ber= lin, before settling in Belgium. Nevertheless, his parents tried desperat= ely to raise their two sons with a sense of grace that war-torn Europe co= uld not easily provide. His mother taught them music, and, according to h= er recollections, Ilya could read piano scores before he could read words= =2E (He played Bach, Mozart, Schumann, and Debussy, and he dreamed of bec= oming a concert pianist.) And when he did learn to read books, he devoure= d the classics. Because of his early interest in history and philosophy h= e wondered why science paid so little attention to time. "The fact that i= n chemistry and physics, past and present could play the same role, I fou= nd a little strange," he remembers. "It was so much in contradiction to o= rdinary experience. Everyone knows that tomorrow is not the same as today= =2E Yet chemists and physicists described a universe where present and pa= st were identical, timeless, and reversible." =

After completing his fourth year in chemistry at the Free University of B= russels, Prigogine decided to study thermodynamics there, focusing on the= special significance of time. He received his Ph.D. in 1941, and by 1946= he had already begun to formulate his concept of dissipative structures.= This theory describes the workings of open systems, that is, systems in = which there is an exchange of matter and energy with the outside environm= ent. (A human being is an open system: An individual takes in food and ox= ygen from the outside for energy, and excretes waste, thereby achieving a= remarkable, albeit temporary, order that is maintained, however, at the = expense of the environment. A true closed system, on the other hand, is a= n ideal concept -- as unattainable as a perpetual-motion machine. A terra= rium or a space colony could be considered close approximations, but thes= e, too, rely on external energy from the sun.) =

Irreversibility is a key concept, Prigogine believes. Just as certain che= micals, when mixed together, can never "unmix" into their original molecu= lar structures, the universe and what it contains, says Prigogine, are ir= reversible. "You cannot reverse the evolution of the universe," he says, = "even theoretically. And you cannot predict its future, except in terms o= f scenarios that depend on never-ending series of . . . crossroads in the= chain of causality." Prigogine's definition of open dissipative structur= es encompasses human social behavior, chemical reactions, and ecosystems:= things whose structures are maintained by continuous flows of energy per= meating them. And energy flow, Prigogine observes, may become so complex = that it causes fluctuations too great for the system to absorb, thus forc= ing it to reorganize. But each reorganization produces greater complexity= and greater likelihood of random fluctuations. The result: more instabil= ity, more reorganization; in other words, a quickened creation of living = matter into new structures. Evolution. =

Among other things, Prigogine's theory vastly broadened the scope of the = second law of thermodynamics- -- that hallmark of nineteenth-century phys= ical science. The "terrible" second law depicts the universe as moving in= exorably toward decay and disorder. The second law includes the concept o= f entropy, which assumes that in a closed system, disorder increases rele= ntlessly until equilibrium (or random dispersal of particles) is reached.= The idea of entropy was an outgrowth of the development of thermal engin= es; scientists noted that no machine ever yields as much as it consumes. = Thus, whenever work is done, an amount of usable energy is irrevocably lo= st. Carried further, this ominous logic implies that all the matter and e= nergy in the universewwill ultimately degrade to a state of tepid, inert = uniformity (equilibrium), or what is popularly called heat death. =

Generally speaking, before Prigogine the important advances made as a res= ult of the second law concerned reversible processes in enclosed systems,= such as the steam engine. Classical scientific inquiry confined itself t= o reversible processes, leaving outside its purview the more disquieting = open or "nonequilibrium" systems. But rather than viewing nonequilibrium = as a negative factor, Prigogine believed that it was actually a source of= organization and order. In effect, he turned the second law on its head = and made it relevant to the natural world and its open, complex, nonequil= ibrium systems. =

The impetus for his intuitive leap came from his observation of a phenome= non known as the Benard Instability. It occurs when a liquid is heated fr= om below. As heating intensifies, the mixture suddenly begins to "self-or= ganize," taking on a striking spatial structure sometimes resembling mini= ature stained-glass cathedral windows, with ovals of brilliant colors arr= anging themselves in kaleidoscopic patterns. The phenomenon intrigued sci= entists because these patterns resembled living cells, in that within eac= h cell, ordered molecular motion occurs. Prigogine reasoned that if this = was possible in fluid dynamics, it would also be possible in chemistry an= d biology. This self-organization of matter represented to him a critical= link between animate and inanimate matter. It could even provide a clue = to the spontaneous eruption of life's beginnings. =

Without proof, however, Prigogine's theory remained just that for nearly = 20 years. Actual experimental evidence to substantiate it did not materia= lize until the late Sixties. Then, chemical processes known as the Zhabot= insky Reactions (after one of the Russian biophysicists who discovered th= em) confirmed Prigogine's theory. Just as he had predicted, the reactions= , which require a continuous outside source of energy, occur at states fa= r from equilibrium; and, like animate matter itself, they're self-organiz= ing. The concentrations of the various chemicals oscillate with clocklike= precision, changing the solution from red to blue at regular intervals. = The effect is what Prigogine calls "order out of chaos." =

Since then Prigogine's output has continued unabated, as has his effect o= f stimulating new directions of scientific research. "As a person," laude= d the usually stodgy Chemical and Engineering News, "Prigogine eme= rges as a figure whose work could create that long-sought bridge between = the physical and social sciences." =

Already his theory has been widely adopted. The U.S. Department of Transp= ortation used it to predict traffic-flow patterns. In biology the theory = has proved useful in understanding a number of phenomena, including the g= lycolytic, or sugar, cycle, a metabolic process by which living cells ext= ract energy from food. =

Most important, perhaps, the theory offers a guardedly optimistic alterna= tive to the pessimistic view of mankind's future -- that winding down of= nature toward a kind of heat death. Prigogine has emerged as a hero to t= hose who hope to bridge the "two-cultures" gap between the sciences and t= he humanities noted by C. P. Snow. One of Prigogine's recurrent themes as= he travels the international lecture circuit is his rejection of Snow's = explanation for the schism's existence. "I think that as long as scientis= ts had only naive views of time, there was not much to communicate," he s= ays. But now, Prigogine thinks society can begin to investigate cultural = and social change in dialogue with science. =

A short, sixty-six-year-old man, with a gracious manner and a sense of pr= ecision in thought and word, the "poet of thermodynamics" continues to di= rect the Solvay Institute, in Brussels, and teach at the University of Br= ussels, as well as head the Center for Studies in Statistical Mechanics, = at the University of Texas at Austin. His book Order Out of Chaos = will be published in the United States later this year. It was in Austin = that Los Angeles-based journalist Robert B. Tucker interviewed Prigogine = (with additional research supplied by former Omni European editor = Bernard Dixon).

OMNI

The concept of time is central to your work. Was there a particul= ar incident in your life that caused you to become interested in it? =

Prigogine

That's difficult to say. Perhaps my interest corresponds to impre= ssions I received during my childhood. I was born in Russia in the year o= f the Revolution. My family left Moscow and I've always wondered whether = this migratory part of my life left me with a vivid sensitivity to change= =2E In any event, I was always deeply interested in humanities, where tim= e plays a central role. Beyond that it is a question of inclination. Some= people are interested in electronics, some in looking for archaeological= artifacts. I went on to study physics and chemistry. And I was astonishe= d that the time element was missing. =

OMNI

Can you recall a particular moment when you had a flash of insigh= t into a specific problem you were working on? =

Prigogine

Well, I always remember with pleasure my first work on nonequilib= rium thermodynamics, in 1946, when I realized that nonequilibrium might b= e a source of organization and order. I was very, happy to have this idea= , which has never left me. Perhaps in science, at some point, there is a = close relationship between who you are and what you try to do. Science is= a much less objective enterprise than often assumed. It's true you need = some tools. You need to write down your findings, and convince yourself a= nd others. But the driving force for new ideas has to be a deep personal = involvement in the problems you're working on. =

OMNI

Are you an intuitive person? =

Prigogine

Oh, yes. For me mathematics is only a tool to write down my ideas= so that in the long run they can be communicated. I say "in the long run= " because in my history all of the ideas I have proposed have been poorly= accepted. =

OMNI

What was the scientific climate like when you first began to stud= y time? =

Prigogine

Well, quite naturally I was interested in the reaction of well-kn= own scientists to this line of research. Their reaction was uniformly neg= ative. It was 1946 or 1947 when one of the most famous scientists attendi= ng a lecture I gave stood up and asked, "Why is this young man devoting h= is interest to irreversible causes? Irreversible causes are just illusory= =2E Time is just a parameter; so forget about it." I was so stunned by th= is reaction that I was unable to get up and respond. But I happen to be v= ery stubborn; so I continued. Today the situation has changed quite a bit= =2E Time has become an essential factor in elementary particles as well a= s cosmology. =

OMNI

You were a nonconformist, a dissident. How did you muster up the = conviction to go against the prevailing ideology? =

Prigogine

I would say, again, this probably corresponds to a deep psycholog= ical element that isn't easy to make explicit. The attitude of Einstein t= oward science, for example, was to go beyond the reality of the moment. H= e wanted to transcend time. But this was the classical view: Time was an = imperfection, and science, a way to get beyond this imperfection to etern= ity. Einstein wanted to travel away from the turmoil, from the wars. He w= anted to find some kind of safe harbor in eternity. For him science was a= n introduction to a timeless reality behind the illusion of becoming. =

My own attitude is very different because, to some extent, I want to feel= the evolution of things. I don't believe in transcending, but in being e= mbedded in a reality that is temporal. =

OMNI

You've said that recent studies you and other scientists have mad= e in the area of irreversibility constitute a new dialogue with nature. H= ow so? =

Prigogine

What was considered by classical physics to be the basic structur= e of the world is now appearing more as an exception, something almost ar= tificial. And what was considered to be exceptional in the classical view= is now becoming the central object, the most interesting part. =

OMNI

What do you mean when you say the classical view? =

Prigogine

I mean a mechanical view of nature. This view held that the world= is made up of unchanging substances -- atoms, molecules, or elementary = particles. It also held that the only type of change is through locomotio= n such as the rotation of planets -- that there's no qualitative change.= The classical view gave rise to the idea of the world as an automaton. =

OMNI

What assumptions of the classical view have now been debunked? =

Prigogine

Mostly those relating to the basic conviction that at some level = the world is simple and is governed by universal time-independent laws. T= his now appears to be an excessive idealization. It's as gross as reducin= g a building to a pile of bricks. Out of those same bricks you could buil= d a factory, a palace, or a cathedral. But only on the level of the build= ing as a whole do we perceive it as a creature of time, as a product of c= ulture. But I believe this analogy isn't quite on target. In nature there= seems to be nobody around to put the bricks together to make a cathedral= or a palace. And everywhere, we're faced with complexity and time. So th= e existence of these two distinct levels -- one of bricks ignoring time = and the other of the building as a whole in which time appears -- is a m= etaphor that cannot be transposed to nature. =

OMNI

What you're really saying is that the world is much more complex = than science wanted to admit, are you not? =

Prigogine

Yes, I believe that's correct. You see, in the classical view, we= had already essentially discovered the great laws. In my view, we have y= et to discover them. If you had asked physicists a few years ago what the= y understood of nature and what they didn't understand, the answer would = have been predictable. They would have said, "We don't understand element= ary particles; we don't understand cosmology. What we do understand reaso= nably well is the range between the microscopic world and the world of co= smology." =

But now a growing minority, to which I belong, would be quite hesitant ab= out making such a claim. We have discovered new properties of matter. And= with all the progress in dissipative structures and irreversibility, we = begin to see that the matter around us is much more interesting than we t= hought. There may be black holes in the middle of the galaxy. That's inte= resting but very, very far away. I don't deny the strong interest in elem= entary particles and cosmology, but if biological matter has different as= pects that we have not yet understood, this makes science much more excit= ing. After all, it's the stuff we're made of. =

OMNI

Since it was first described, the second law of thermodynamics ha= s been considered profoundly important to our understanding of nature. Wh= at have you done to change our idea of that law? =

Prigogine

The second law of thermodynamics always had a dual character. On = the one hand, it introduced a kind of arrow of time. In isolated systems,= entropy is always increasing. It introduced the idea of thermodynamic eq= uilibrium [complete randomness]: the state corresponding to maximum entro= py. Our work has shifted the emphasis from equilibrium to nonequilibrium = -- irreversible processes. =

Of course, in its original form the second law recognized the existence o= f irreversible processes but gave them only a negative role. The idea, yo= u remember, came into prominence around the time of the Industrial Revolu= tion. Many people thought of irreversible processes as destructive becaus= e of friction, or rapid propagation of heat, or whatever. =

According to the second law entropy is increasing. And classical physics = was concerned with the point where all irreversible processes have alread= y played their role. Such systems are in equilibrium: Chemical reactions = have stopped; heat conduction has stopped. Our contribution has been to a= rgue against the idea that equilibrium states are the most important or i= nteresting. On the contrary, it is non-equilibrium that is essential to t= he understanding of our world and universe. =

Within the framework of the second law, irreversible processes can have a= constructive, positive role, rather than a destructive one. They give ri= se to dissipative structures. Now looking at biology, social behavior, ec= ology, and economics, we begin to have a meeting point between the variou= s concepts of evolution. =

OMNI

Aren't there aspects of your theory that defy the laws of thermod= ynamics? =

Prigogine

No. On the contrary, they show only that the meaning of the laws = near equilibrium and far from equilibrium are different. Near equilibrium= you always go to the most banal, the most uniform state. The general ide= a of classical physics is, we progress toward the running down of the uni= verse. This may be true to some extent for the universe as a whole. But a= t the moment it's a very difficult question because we don't know the rel= ation between entropy and gravitation. =

What we see here on Earth is just the opposite of entropy. Instead of goi= ng to heat death, we see successive diversification. And so, in spite of = the fact that the second law is probably satisfied, we are not going towa= rd equilibrium, because this stream of energy comes to us finally from th= e stars, the galaxy, and so on. It ultimately originated in the big bang = or whatever -- the original presence in the universe. =

OMNI

The concept of bifurcation is key to the theory of dissipative st= ructures. [A simple example of bifurcation is seen in an audience's respo= nse at the end of a concert: A few people start clapping and suddenly eve= ryone begins to clap in a seemingly spontaneous outpouring. This changes = the nature of the concert hall and the audience, and gives feedback to th= e performer.] How are you using the word? =

Prigogine

Bifurcation is the appearance of new states of matter at critical= points. Before that critical point is reached you have a chaotic structu= re. But once that point has been reached you have order. The chemical clo= ck [Zhabotinsky Reactions] is an example of it. It shows that the reactin= g mixture is not chaotic, but there is actually a coherence. There is the= possibility of chemical communication between molecules over long distan= ces and long periods of time. That is a property everybody always accepte= d in living systems, but in nonliving systems it was quite unexpected. Th= rough such experiments in dissipative structures we see that matter is mu= ch more integrated than we thought. The gap between life and nonlife is s= maller than we used to believe. Before, we thought that life was the grea= t exception, the contradiction of the laws of physics. Now we see that co= mplexity can spontaneously arise far from equilibrium. =

OMNI

How does bifurcation apply to life? =

Prigogine

The way structure appears is a tantalizing riddle. Of course, liv= ing organisms are historical -- they carry genetic information from half= a billion years of evolution. So the appearance of structure in biologic= al systems is not easy to study, because you have to take into account wh= at is heritage and what is assembled today. But it seems to me bifurcatio= n is the key phenomenon in shaping morphogenetic patterns, especially whe= n you see the type of monster malformations produced after exposing livin= g structures to X rays, for example. Here you have started with a very sy= mmetrical system whose symmetry has been broken. How does this happen? In= a sense, there are choices and the system can go in one direction or ano= ther. A good example is the formation of a body; the egg cell is basicall= y spherical and symmetrical, but then goes into less and less symmetrical= structures. Of all the problems in biology the role of bifurcation, the = transition from one direction to another, is vitally important. =

=

Transmitted: 93-08-05 11:05:10 EDT =

=

Document ID: moabh65v INTERVIEW: Ilya Prigogine, Part 2 (May 1983) =

OMNI

Doesn't molecular biology provide answers to problems of developm= ent? =

Prigogine

No one would disagree that molecular biology has made enormous ad= vances. However, let us not forget that organisms and parts of organisms = are coherent systems. What happens in your head has a repercussion on you= r leg and vice versa. We are dealing with enormously more powerful uses o= f information than the interactions between individual molecules. =

OMNI

What is the biological importance of the chemical-clock experimen= ts? =

Prigogine

The amazing thing is that each molecule knows in some way what th= e other molecules will do at the same time, over relatively macroscopic d= istances. These experiments provide examples of the ways in which molecul= es communicate. The chemical clock is perhaps one of the simplest example= s of the chemical communication that plays such an essential role in biol= ogical systems. =

OMNI

You once used highway driving as an example of dissipative struct= ures as applied somewhat loosely to social situations. How does that work= ? =

Prigogine

When you drive on the highway you have your own program, your own= speed. When other people drive at the same time, competition begins. Thi= s competition brings about a change in your driving. This is feedback. Fe= edback is a situation that involves nonlinearities. It is far from equili= brium in the sense that as more and more people drive, the situation beco= mes more and more distorted. =

OMNI

I don't understand what the nonlinear aspect is. =

Prigogine

The competition between the drivers. You can make a very simple t= heory, which I did twenty years ago, that incorporates the effects of you= r own wishes, the way other people wish to drive, and the competition bet= ween the various wishes. You come out with the kind of nonlinear equation= that describes this evolution. =

First you drive as you want to. Then you take into account the other driv= ers, but you still drive as you want to. That is what I call the individu= al regime. Then you go beyond the critical concentration [of cars] and co= me into a new organization in which you force the other drivers to drive = as you drive. I call that the collective regime. It's a very good example= of bifurcation, a phase change to a coherent structure -- the highway a= s a whole. Now, this is not necessarily beneficial. You are embedded in s= omething that does not depend on you and in which you are a part. You con= tribute to it but can't escape. =

OMNI

What are the characteristics of being embedded in something? =

Prigogine

Being embedded implies a mutual situation. You drive in a way tha= t influences others, and other people influence you. You can no longer sa= y that you have free will. You are part of a collectivity to which you co= ntribute, even in a sense against your will. And data on highway driving = show there really is a transition to a different phase when the critical = concentration is reached. =

OMNI

Could you cite another example of nonlinearity and feedback? =

Prigogine

The way in which music developed. Music evolved in each society a= ccording to the particular types of instruments people invented. Metal, w= ood, and string have the same physical properties everywhere. But the mus= ical instruments that emerged affected the music that could be played, wh= ich in turn influenced the type of music that was composed, which altered= the evolution of the instruments. So a symphony orchestra is one express= ion of what wood, string, and metal can do. But we also have Chinese musi= c, Indian music, and so on. And there are different underlying value syst= ems as well as different observed behaviors. We appreciate one kind of mu= sical scale; another culture, a different tonal formation. =

OMNI

What effect do you suppose your vision of nature will have on the= cultural tensions that are usually associated with classical science? =

Prigogine

Well, the classical view of nature was passive. The world was tho= ught to be an automaton; the universe, clockwork. Joseph Needham, the gre= at [British] historian, often said that Western thought has oscillated be= tween seeing the world as an automaton and seeing it as a theological con= struct in which God governs the universe. Actually, these two views are n= ot so inconsistent. If the world is an automaton, it needs a God to gover= n it. An automaton is not self-governed. But this kind of concept present= s us with a rather tragic choice: to accept scientific rationality and th= e alienation that is the consequence of this acceptance; or to go into ph= ilosophical speculations that are divorced from contact with science. I t= hink such a choice is no longer necessary. =

OMNI

Why is that? =

Prigogine

The classical view divided the universe between spiritual self an= d the physical, external world. Yet inside us we see time, activity; we e= xperience change. This internal experience is in complete contrast with t= he view of the world as a timeless automaton. As we begin to discover the= roots of time outside us, this duality tends to disappear. We see a conv= ergence between the world outside and the world inside us. With the parad= igm of self-organization we see a transition from disorder to order. In t= he field of psychological activity this is perhaps the main experience we= have -- every artistic or scientific creation implies a transition from= disorder to order. =

OMNI

What was the classical response to time-dependent processes? =

Prigogine

To try to avoid them. You see, the famous entropy principle isn't= a real law. It simply states that some events are more likely to occur t= han others, since entropy is considered to be only an approximation. But = because there was such a distrust of time, there was also a distrust of l= ife, because all life is obviously time-oriented. Still, you will find ma= ny people saying that life is an accident -- that life is not within the= laws of physics. =

Clearly, in the physical universe four types of phenomena occur. Structur= es appear, as with biological systems and social systems; and they disapp= ear, as when you mix two liquids. There are also deterministic processes,= like the motion of the earth around the sun, and nondeterministic proces= ses. What has changed is the perception of the relative importance of the= se processes. We begin to see now that the deterministic processes can be= seen only in isolated, artificial systems. The natural world, on the oth= er hand, is a world of irreversible processes, of self-organization. So I= talk about a new dialogue with nature because I think we are beginning t= o perceive nature on Earth in exactly the opposite way we viewed it in cl= assical physics. We no longer conceive of nature as a passive object. I c= an't stress enough that it is an active object in our lives. And we see n= ow that life has much deeper roots than we once suspected. =

OMNI

Why did you choose to call those systems that are embedded in a s= tream of activity dissipative structures? =

Prigogine

I wanted to bring together two concepts: the idea of structure, w= hich generally is static; and dissipation, for which you need energy cont= inually brought in and going out. This is the type of structure that may = appear at some distance from equilibrium. Far from equilibrium you have s= pecificity. The world is multiple: We have ants, elephants, plants, and c= ivilizations. New, highly specific solutions appear when you go far from = equilibrium. =

OMNI

Why do you suppose this emphasis on reversible processes existed = for such a long time? =

Prigogine

Your question reminds me of a story about meteorites. We know the= y were observed long ago. And by the beginning of the nineteenth century = there was a marvelous collection in the museum in Vienna. Then a new cura= tor appeared who said that meteorites were obviously products of supersti= tion. They did not exist because there was no place for them in the Newto= nian view of the planetary system. So he threw the entire collection away= =2E Then the French Academy was asked to give its opinion about some mete= orites found near Paris. It sent a deputation there and they came back wi= th the message, "Meteorites do not exist; they are artifacts -- probably= old industrial debris." Then a little later still, a real rain of meteor= ites smashed nearly all the windows of the academy At this point its memb= ers could hardly help concluding that meteorites existed. =

OMNI

And how would this analogy apply to the classical world view? =

Prigogine

Well, I think today we have begun to accept the idea that our phy= sics is the result of our conscious activity. The classical idea was that= when you studied physics you looked at nature from the out side, as if y= ou had the infinite wisdom that traditionally has been attributed to God.= =

OMNI

How important is human consciousness in determining the kind of w= orld view we ultimately construct? =

Prigogine

Consciousness plays an essential role because we construct realit= y through mathematical concepts. If our consciousness had a different str= ucture we probably could not use the same type of constructs that we do. = That's not to say physics is subjective; there must be a relation between= our physics and reality. However, the way in which we speak about this r= eality is something we create. =

OMNI

Has our desire to understand reality led us to greater complexity= ? =

Prigogine

Max Born, one of the great founders of quantum mechanics, once wr= ote that he believed ideas such as absolute certitude, absolute exactness= , final truth, and so on are figments of the imagination and should not b= e admissible in any field of science. I agree with him most in his belief= that this loosening of thinking was the greatest blessing modern science= has given us. You see, to me this coexistence of unconscious and conscio= us activity -- of opacity and transparency -- will ultimately lead to a= new cultural unity. =

OMNI

Of what sort? =

Prigogine

Well, by rediscovering time and randomness in physics, we encount= er many things that are of basic interest in other fields of human endeav= or. All this leads to a common perspective. I think there is a common str= eam running through the development of physics in our century -- be it r= elativity, quantum mechanics, or the second law of thermodynamics. In a v= ariety of ways they all show that there are limits to our power to manipu= late matter. In classical physics we thought we could send signals with i= nfinite velocity and measure any physical quantity with arbitrary precisi= on. Today we know both of these feats are impossible. For example, the ve= locity of signals is limited by the velocity of light. Measurement is lim= ited by quantum mechanics. Our manipulation of matter is limited by the s= econd law of thermodynamics. But these limitations don't mark the end of = our knowledge of nature. On the contrary, they are the starting points fo= r some of the most powerful theories humankind has ever constructed. =

OMNI

In a commemorative lecture you gave several years ago honoring Al= bert Einstein, you noted that he had become the Darwin of physics. Darwin= , you said, taught us that man is embedded in biological evolution, and E= instein taught us that we are embedded in an evolutionary universe. How w= ould you characterize Einstein's contribution? =

Prigogine

Einstein became the Darwin of physics against his will. His view = was of a static, nonevolving universe. And when people showed that this s= tatic universe was unstable and had to be replaced by an evolving univers= e, Einstein was astonished. I knew some of the founders of the expanding-= universe theory very well, among them the Belgian [physicist], Lemaitre. = Lemaitre told me that Einstein was always saying, "Well, this big bang, t= his evolving universe, sounds too much like Genesis. I'm not so happy abo= ut this. I think you take my theory too seriously." But today we have all= kinds of confirmation of the existence of this large-scale evolution. Ho= wever, let's be careful, because we don't know whether this is the evolut= ion of the overall universe or just some galactic neighborhood in which w= e're living. =

OMNI

In the lecture on Einstein, you noted that his most striking cont= ribution was the idea that we are in an evolving universe, and that, ther= efore, the laws of physics must have changed. What did you mean? =

Prigogine

The fact that there is an evolving universe, which started from v= ery different conditions than now exist, completely changes our idea abou= t the laws of physics. When the universe started, the conditions of matte= r were so different that present-day laws have no meaning. You can't spea= k about laws of life when there is no life. You cannot speak about laws o= f human behavior if there are no human beings around. Therefore, the very= idea of law itself becomes an evolutionary concept to a certain extent. =

OMNI

Do you see any relationship between the way society has evolved i= n recent years and the way science is now considering new pictures of nat= ure? =

Prigogine

That's a very difficult question to answer. There is an internal = history of science, corresponding to the evolution of theoretical views. = There's also an influence of culture on physics as a whole. On the one ha= nd, the discoveries of unstable particles and of the dissipative structur= es haven't much to do with societal problems. Yet they lead to a rethinki= ng of the concept of a natural law. The whole notion of a law of nature w= as formulated by Descartes and Newton in the seventeenth century, a time = of absolute monarchy. Nature had to follow, somewhat as people had to fol= low, the edicts of the kingdom or the emperor. The idea of natural laws c= ertainly has a sociological context. I find our period remarkable precise= ly because some of the questions in social science and in natural science= form a kind of confluence. In the past we've seen two other periods in w= hich such convergences occurred: the Greek classical period and the Renai= ssance. And during both those periods you had people like Plato and Arist= otle, or Descartes and Newton, who were philosopher-scientists. =

OMNI

A number of social thinkers now cite your theory of dissipative s= tructures to explain the transformation they see occurring in American so= ciety. What relevance does your theory have to social systems? =

Prigogine

What they are saying is that I emphasize self-organization, and t= herefore spontaneity and amplification. In large societies it becomes inc= reasingly difficult to maintain the spontaneous activity of members of th= at society. I'm not a social scientist. However, I think what we need in = society is amplification, spontaneity, and fluctuation. And that is exact= ly what is missing in forms of society where one tries to categorize peop= le, to pattern their activities into well-defined channels. Nature gives = us a different model. Nature is trying experiments all the time; some of = them are amplified, others are not. This spontaneity of nature is a model= we must keep in mind. =

The common denominator in these very different issues is the desire to av= oid the mistake of classical physics, which believed we could control nat= ure. Today we want to act on our creativity to promote fluctuations that = we can't control anyway. =

OMNI

How do your ideas apply to an open system such as climate? =

Prigogine

Well, not very long ago everybody was convinced that the history = of climate was an external history. The sun was changing, for example; th= ere may have been cosmic dust around and supposedly this would explain ho= w the axis of the earth had changed. And these external events accounted = for climatological changes. But today we have quite a different picture. = We ask whether climate is really stable. What will happen as a result of = small fluctuations? Scientists now believe that climate is generally unst= able. Even today we could have various climates evolve. For example, a di= fficult situation could develop if there were a series of cold winters in= succession. The glaciers would come down, Earth would absorb less energy= from the sun, and the planet would start to cool down. There would be a = multiple effect, which could continue until the earth was completely cove= red by snow. With the same planet, the same chemicals, and the same flow = of energy from the sun, various climates are possible. =

OMNI

It sounds as if we are living under a permanent threat. =

Prigogine

Yes, but we are also living under what may become a promise, beca= use once we have recognized the situation, we can hope to change things. = I mean in the long run, not tomorrow. In a sense, we are following a bifu= rcation, one of several possible structures. There were times, say twenty= thousand years ago, when we had humid and warm interludes between two gl= acial periods. During these times the earth was much more fertile than it= is now. So the notion that the present climate completely determines the= future is an over-simplified one. It is being replaced by a picture of m= ultiple futures that hinge upon fluctuations. That is, of course, a very = threatening idea. But it's also an idea that brings hope, if there are no= catastrophes that destroy us. =

OMNI

What role does society play in fostering creativity? =

Prigogine

It's very difficult to be creative in science and not be creative= in more general terms. When you are living in an oppressive or repressiv= e society it's difficult to be creative in science. This is one of the re= asons why, in spite of the great attention and money Soviet Russia is lav= ishing on science, creativity and new ideas there are relatively exceptio= nal. =

OMNI

You speak of the Soviet Union's scientific environment. What abou= t the scientific contributions of other countries or continents. Asia, fo= r example? =

Prigogine

It seems to me the recent evolution of science takes us away from= the cultural context of the West, where modern science was founded. The = idea of a self-organizing universe is close to the Chinese scientific tra= dition. The idea of a universe we see in us -- with its important tempor= al component -- converging with a universe outside us, is reminiscent of= many traditions of Indian thought. I don't want to imply that modern sci= ence will justify Oriental wisdom, however, or vice versa, for that matte= r. But I do believe that the growth of science now makes it a planetary e= ndeavor. An ever-increasing contribution will flourish from outside the W= estern world. =

OMNI

What kind of scientific progress do you see over the next twenty = years? =

Prigogine

The purpose of classical physics was to find some fundamental lev= el of simplicity in terms of which our universe could be deciphered. I do= ubt if this level exists. Instead we will have to deal with the complexit= y we have discovered. But this very complexity will lead to new disciplin= es, which will help us to transfer our knowledge from one domain to anoth= er. Perhaps the challenge of these coming years will be to master complex= ity. =

OMNI

What are the religious implications of your research? =

Prigogine

I think that instead of the duality that Needham described -- be= tween seeing the universe as an automaton or, on the other hand, as the p= icture of a guiding God who acts through us and has created both a dead u= niverse and the human soul -- is mistaken. I see us as nearer to a Taois= t view, in which we are embedded in a universe that is not foreign to us.= =

OMNI

Your views sound similar to those of Teilhard de Chardin. =

Prigogine

Not really. Chardin described the world as if he were outside of = it. He was sure that every change, every new bifurcation, was going in th= e right direction -- in the direction of increased spirituality. On the = contrary, I am more impressed by the existence of multiple time horizons.= A bifurcation can lead us to the best or to the worst. We are participat= ing in an evolution whose outcome isn't clear to us. So I leave open the = question of the meaning of being. I'm not even certain whether, put in th= ese terms, a scientific answer is possible. Probably it has more to do wi= th feelings or emotions In any event, I believe it is more hopeful, more = exhilarating, to be embedded in a living world than to be alone living in= a dead universe. And this is really what I try to express in my work.


Home || = Prime Time || = Live Science || = Machine Dreams || = Project Open Book || = SF-Fantasy-Horror
Continuum || = Antimatter || = Mind-Brain Lab || = Interactive IQ || = Gallery || = OMNI Toons

Questions, comments and suggestions can be mailed to the webmaster.


Copyright (C) 1997 by Omn= i Publications International, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

--------------4E5619976661463CC0B09C4D--