Saturday, 13 June 2026

Life, the Universe and Everything (Part 1)

This is the first in a series of essays exploring a chain of questions about complexity, life, consciousness, intelligence, and ethics. Together, they form a rough map of the journey, hopefully with not too many imaginary dragons along the way.

Part 1

What is life, how does it come about in the Universe, how rare is it? How should we think about the value of life, from a humble bacterium to a sperm whale? Is there some useful framework which could help us investigate this question soberly, unfettered from religious or ideological doctrines? In order to start exploring these questions, let’s begin with a simple but fundamental concept: complexity.

Consider a crystal. It is a conglomeration of atoms naturally arranged in a well-defined pattern. The pattern determines its form and rigidity, but a crystal is a static arrangement, it does not move, self-regulate, repair itself, adapt, or respond to the world except through ordinary physical interaction. The amount of information we need to communicate precisely what a crystal is can be simplified, because of these patterns.

Smoke, on the other hand, moves and changes its shape constantly. Smoke is also physical matter, made up of large numbers of particles that interact with each other, but here the particles are not arranged in well-defined patterns. They move around, collide, swirl, and spread. If we tried to describe all that microscopic activity in full detail, the description would be enormous. It would require that we track each individual particle and its interactions with surrounding particles. Smoke is hard to describe precisely, beyond some general statistical properties.

Considering these two simple examples, we can start to see why information matters when we talk about complexity.

But what kind of information is useful, and in what sense? A quick distinction may help. Data are recorded differences: positions, temperatures, symbols, measurements. Information is drawing inferences from data that reduces uncertainty in some context. Organized information is information embedded in relationships that produce stable effects. The last of these is the one that matters most here.

The crystal contains information in its structure, because the arrangement of its atoms reveals something fundamental about the rest of it. Describing the pattern compactifies the description. One no longer needs to describe exactly what each atom is doing, we describe the pattern without loss of information. Of course smoke contains information too, in a statistical sense. But that information is mostly not organized into stable patterns. It is hard to summarize because of its inherent messiness.

So complexity is not just about how much information is needed to describe something. There is something relevant about the nature of this information itself. What part of it is preserved, structured? Does local information carry over to other parts of the system in ways that are reproducible? Does it generate patterns that can persist, change in some predictable fashion, or be transmitted in some way or form? Or is the information indistinguishable from random noise?

Entropy measures the degree of disorder of a system. In information theory, it is more precise to think of it as a measure of uncertainty. Smoke for example, has high entropy because it is highly disorganized and we need excessive amounts of information to describe it precisely. It is not easily reducible. A random signal has high entropy because it is hard to predict. A regularly repeated signal has lower entropy because it is easier to predict. Noise can reveal broad statistical properties and temporary local patterns, but not patterns that persist, regulate, reproduce, or compound.

So the important question to ask is whether the information content is organized in some form. Does it carry patterns? Does the ordered structure regulate a process? Can it respond to changes without dissolving into noise? This is where complexity starts to become interesting, when it becomes organized and persistent.

Ok, but organized how?

A large pile of bricks and a house both have structure, but it is not organized in the same way. In the pile, the bricks are simply there, ordered or disordered. In the house, the position of each part relates to the function of the whole. Walls carry weight, doors allow passage without compromising the structure, windows let in light, and so on. The ordered complexity of the arrangement is necessary because each of the parts constrains and supports each other. All together, they serve some common function: to provide humans with a living space. This is artificial organization of course, but natural systems can also naturally develop ordered patterns that serve different functions.

A whirlpool, or a hurricane, also has some kind of organization that makes it more interesting than smoke. It can maintain an identifiable structure for some time. Energy flowing through its structure is one of the ways information propagates across the system. But these structures arise only under particular conditions. Remove those conditions, and the pattern quickly disappears.

So persistence of structures seems relevant when we are talking about ordered complexity, but persistence of ordered complexity alone is not a guarantee of compounding higher degrees of complexity. A rock can persist for a very long time, but its complex structure is not particularly exciting (unless you are a geologist, in which case, fair enough).

If we want to understand how organized complexity starts moving toward life, something more than persistence is required. A stable, reproducible pattern is needed, but additional activity is also necessary. Certain sufficiently complex patterns perform functions.

A flame maintains itself while fuel and oxygen are available. It replicates under the right conditions and converts energy. But it does not store information, does not alter its structure across generations, or build internal machinery to regulate itself. It operates in a limited fashion until the underlying conditions fail.

But there are also patterns that can preserve some part of their own organization across time. It happens all the time in chemical reactions across the universe, and one chemical element, Carbon, is exceptionally good at generating large complex structures by repeatedly bonding with itself.

Complex organized chemical structures gradually interacted in ways that produced more complex arrangements. They became larger organized structures with multiple components. Most of these arrangements formed, drifted, broke apart, or dissolved back into the chemical background, and nothing lasting came out of them. Remnants of such processes are in the dust and gas in the interstellar medium.

But there are places in the universe with abundant available energy and with very rich and diverse types of highly organized building blocks. And a tiny fraction of these building blocks randomly arranged themselves in patterns that began to chemically interact with their environment in more complex ways. Interactions between complex systems began to become complex themselves. Additional complexity compounds. Once a system has more parts interacting in more ways, it gains new degrees of freedom. More things can happen.

Chemistry determines what types of different complex molecules interact, and how, under local constraints. Some arrangements are more stable than others. Certain arrangements make other arrangements more likely. The degree of randomness is constrained because of energy conditions, molecular shapes, charges, relative concentrations, surface, temperature and pressure conditions, which all restrict what processes can take place. The possible combinations are vast, but not arbitrary.

If everything disperses immediately, the system has no local history. Useful products will drift away and reaction networks break apart. Locality means that the reactions take place in some kind of setting where their products remain near each other. This could take the form of a membrane, a droplet, a mineral pore, an ice pocket, or some other structure that preserves locality. The system needs enough separation from its surroundings for its internal state to matter. This sets up feedback loops inside that environment. Products accumulate, some reactions may become easier, structures can stabilize other structures, and some arrangements last longer, while others collapse.

Once variation exists, some versions persist better than others under those particular conditions. Certain patterns persist more efficiently and become more common. The loop now includes energy flow, locality, self-maintenance, information storage, imperfect copying and selection. The underlying system begins to participate in its own persistence.

The whole process acts as a filter. The pattern becomes part of a process that preserves and reproduces structure. Ordered complexity and information are no longer merely present in the arrangement. They begin to play a role inside the arrangement. This is the first major threshold.

Ordered complexity becomes the foundation of structures that persist, interact, regulate, and help generate more structure. The road toward highly complex systems, and perhaps toward very simple life, starts to barely become visible, though by no means inevitable. Under the right conditions, matter can organize itself into patterns that participate in their own continuation.

So the natural next question is this: at what point do some complex organized patterns become identifiable as life?


Further reading
If you want to dig deeper, here are some recommendations that explore these ideas: James Gleick’s Chaos for how simple rules can produce complex and unpredictable behaviour; Philip Ball’s Patterns in Nature for the way natural forms and structures arise without design; and Max Tegmark’s Our Mathematical Universe for thinking about reality as mathematical structure and pattern.

Related lighter and fun fiction
Olaf Stapledon’s Star Maker approaches cosmic order, life, mind, and civilization on the largest possible scale; Arthur C. Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey explores intelligence, evolution, tools, and encounters with higher-order mystery; and Iain M. Banks’ Excession imagines advanced minds confronting something beyond their own frame of understanding.

Sunday, 31 May 2026

Κλιματική αλλαγή (ξανά)

 Πριν από σχεδόν δέκα χρόνια είχα γράψει ένα μικρό κείμενο για την κλιματική αλλαγή, επειδή είχα απηυδήσει να διαβάζω διάφορες ανοησίες στα ελληνικά social media. Δέκα χρόνια μετά διαβάζουμε ακόμη τις ίδιες σαχλαμάρες.

Μια μπούρδα ολκής είναι το επιχείρημα «Το κλίμα πάντα άλλαζε.»

Ναί, και οι άνθρωποι πάντα πέθαιναν, αλλά αν βρεις κάποιον με μια χαντζάρα στην πλάτη δεν λες, ναί μωρέ,  «οι άνθρωποι πάντα πέθαιναν». Το ξέρουμε ότι το κλίμα της Γης έχει αλλάξει στο παρελθόν. Οι αλλαγές αυτές είναι γενικά σταδιακές και παίρνουν εκατομμύρια χρόνια. Το ερώτημά μας είναι τι προκαλεί τη σημερινή, ραγδαία εξελισσόμενη θέρμανση του πλανήτη τα τελευταία περίπου 100 χρόνια. Κι εδώ επίσης ξέρουμε την απάντηση.


Δεν υπάρχει ουδεμία αμφιβολία οτι τα κύρια αίτια είναι η ανθρώπινη δραστηριότητα, κυρίως η καύση ορυκτών καυσίμων, η αύξηση των αερίων του θερμοκηπίου και οι αλλαγές στη χρήση γης. Δεν είναι πολιτικό το θέμα. Είναι αυστηρά επιστημονικό και στηρίζεται σε τεράστιο όγκο δεδομένων. Όχι επειδή το λέω εγώ, ή κάποιος τυχάρπαστος σε ένα πάνελ. Δεν είναι κάποια «ατζέντα». Είναι το συμπέρασμα πολλών δεκαετιών μετρήσεων, φυσικής, μοντέλων, δορυφορικών παρατηρήσεων, παλαιοκλιματικών δεδομένων, ισοτοπικών ενδείξεων, μετρήσεων CO₂, ενεργειακού ισοζυγίου και ατμοσφαιρικής φυσικής. Από επιστημονικής άποψης, είναι λυμένο πρόβλημα. Οι πολιτικές προεκτάσεις είναι άλλο θέμα. Πρώτα αναγνωρίζουμε πώς έχει πραγματικά η κατάσταση, και μετά συζητάμε ώς κοινωνίες τί μπορούμε να κάνουμε. Δεν χώνουμε το κεφάλι στην άμμο και τραγουδάμε λαλαλά.

Κάποιοι προσπαθούν να θολώσουν τα νερά γιατί είτε δεν καταλαβαίνουν πώς να διαβάσουν τις μετρήσεις, είτε γιατί πιστεύουν σε θεωρίες συνωμοσίας, είτε γιατί έχουν κάτι να κερδίσουν, είτε γιατί δεν πιστεύουν ότι μπορούμε να κάνουμε τίποτα, είτε γιατί αμφισβητούν κάποια από τα δεδομένα, πάντα επιλεκτικά.  Αυτό λέγεται cherry-picking. Παίρνουν δηλαδή μία συγκεκριμένη πηγή, έναν επιστήμονα, ένα γράφημα χωρίς πλαίσιο, ή μία περίοδο δέκα ετών που τους βολεύει, και τα παρουσιάζουν ως δήθεν αντίβαρο απέναντι σε ολόκληρο το σώμα της επιστημονικής γνώσης. Παιδιά, αυτό δεν είναι σκεπτικισμός. Είναι επιλεκτική άγνοια.

Ο πραγματικός σκεπτικισμός κοιτάζει όλα τα δεδομένα. Ρωτά αν η υπόθεση εξηγεί το σύνολο των παρατηρήσεων. Αντέχει στον έλεγχο; Κάνει προβλέψεις; Συμφωνεί με τη φυσική που γνωρίζουμε; Εξηγεί γιατί θερμαίνεται η τροπόσφαιρα και ψύχεται η στρατόσφαιρα; Εξηγεί την άνοδο της θερμοκρασίας των ωκεανών; Εξηγεί την αύξηση της συγκέντρωσης CO₂ και την ισοτοπική του υπογραφή; Εξηγεί γιατί οι φυσικοί παράγοντες, όπως ο Ήλιος ή τα ηφαίστεια, δεν αρκούν για να εξηγήσουν τη σημερινή θέρμανση; Η άρνηση δεν τα εξηγεί αυτά. Απλώς αναποδογυρίζει τη σκακιέρα και βγάζει γλώσσα. Και, ειλικρινά, έχει αρχίσει να γίνεται κουραστικό.

Δεν είμαστε στο 1990. Δεν είμαστε κάν στην αρχή της συζήτησης. Δεν περιμένουμε ακόμη να βεβαιωθούμε αν είναι πραγματικά ανθρωπογενής ή όχι. Η επιστημονική συζήτηση σήμερα αφορά τις λεπτομέρειες, τα εύρη αβεβαιότητας,τις  περιφερειακές επιπτώσεις, την ταχύτητα των αλλαγών, διάφορα σενάρια εκπομπών, πιθανές προσαρμογές, πιθανές τεχνολογικές λύσεις, πολιτικές αποφάσεις και κόστος.

Ανεξάρτητες μελέτες, με διαφορετικές μεθόδους, διαφορετικά δεδομένα, διαφορετικά μοντέλα και διαφορετικές αρχικές υποθέσεις, συγκλίνουν στο ίδιο συμπέρασμα επειδή αυτό εξηγεί καλύτερα την πραγματικότητα. Και όταν τα δεδομένα αλλάζουν, η επιστήμη διορθώνεται. Αυτό είναι το ακριβώς αντίθετο της ιδεολογικής τύφλωσης.

Η ειρωνεία είναι ότι πολλοί από αυτούς που φωνάζουν ότι «η επιστήμη πρέπει να αμφισβητείται» δεν αμφισβητούν τίποτα από αυτά που τους βολεύουν. Αμφισβητούν μόνο το συμπέρασμα που δεν τους αρέσει. Παιδιά, σας έχω νέα. Δεν είναι ελεύθερη σκέψη να αγνοείς συστηματικά τα δεδομένα, ούτε είναι θαρραλέο να προωθείς μπούρδες, ούτε είναι έξυπνο να ψάχνεις στο διαδίκτυο μέχρι να βρεις έναν άνθρωπο, κάπου, που λέει αυτό που ήθελες να ακούσεις εξαρχής.

Σας ενοχλεί που το θέμα έχει πάρει πολιτικές διαστάσεις; Σας τη δίνουν μερικοί ακτιβιστές και το γενικότερο τοξικό κλίμα του διαλόγου; Πάρτε αριθμό και μπείτε στη σειρά. Αλλά το θέμα δεν είναι πολιτικό, είναι επιστημονικό. 

Με αυτό ώς δεδομένο, μπορούμε μετά να συζητήσουμε για πολιτικές λύσεις. Να συμφωνήσουμε ή να διαφωνήσουμε για πυρηνική ενέργεια, ΑΠΕ, φόρους άνθρακα, τεχνολογική καινοτομία, προσαρμογή, κόστος, δικαιοσύνη, ανάπτυξη, γεωπολιτική. Αλλά το να επιστρέφουμε κάθε τόσο στο «το κλίμα πάντα άλλαζε» είναι σαν να επιστρέφουμε συνεχώς στην ιδέα οτι η Γή είναι επίπεδη, και είναι σπατάλη χρόνου και δημιουργικής ενέργειας. Άντε, γιατί κάποια στιγμή πρέπει να τελειώνουμε με τα προσχήματα.

Η ανθρωπογενής κλιματική αλλαγή είναι πραγματική. Η βασική φυσική είναι γνωστή. Τα δεδομένα είναι συντριπτικά. Η επιστημονική συναίνεση είναι εξαιρετικά ισχυρή. Και η επιλεκτική χρήση πηγών για να συντηρείται η άρνηση είναι αισχρή παραπληροφόρηση.

Στην τελική, αν ακόμα έχετε αμφιβολίες, ρωτήστε κι εμάς που ξημεροβραδιάζουμε μέσα στην επιστημονική βιβλιογραφία να μάθετε περισσότερα. Εδώ είμαστε.

Πηγές:

  1. Cook, J. et al. (2013), “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”, Environmental Research Letters, 8, 024024.
    Μελέτη 11.944 επιστημονικών περιλήψεων για την κλιματική αλλαγή. Από τις εργασίες που εξέφραζαν θέση για την αιτία της υπερθέρμανσης, το 97,1% υποστήριζε την ανθρωπογενή εξήγηση.
    https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
  2. Cook, J. et al. (2016), “Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming”, Environmental Research Letters, 11, 048002.
    Σύνθεση έξι ανεξάρτητων μελετών για την επιστημονική συναίνεση. Το συμπέρασμα είναι ότι 90-100% των ενεργών επιστημόνων του κλίματος συμφωνούν πως οι άνθρωποι προκαλούν τη σημερινή υπερθέρμανση.
    https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
  3. Lynas, M., Houlton, B. Z. & Perry, S. (2021), “Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature”, Environmental Research Letters, 16, 114005.
    Επικαιροποιημένη ανάλυση 88.125 επιστημονικών εργασιών από το 2012 έως το 2020. Το συμπέρασμα είναι ότι η συναίνεση στην επιστημονική βιβλιογραφία υπερβαίνει το 99%.
    https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966


Friday, 15 May 2026

Western civilization is not rooted in Christian values

A common line I keep hearing from modern Christian conservatives is that “Western civilisation is rooted in Christian values.” Well, fine, yes. But also, no. Mostly, it’s complicated, which is what people who do bumper-sticker history tend to dismiss as mere details. So let’s go into the details. 



Christianity is certainly one of Europe’s important civilisational layers, especially in the medieval world. But “the West” most certainly did not begin with Christianity, nor can its foundations be reduced to it. 

Long before Christianity arrived in Europe, the Greeks and Romans had already built many of the foundations of Western thought: philosophy, logic, mathematics, law, political theory, republican ideas, drama, history, ethics (and not all of these are exclusively Western ideas). Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics, Cicero and others were part of the house well before Christianity moved in and started rearranging the furniture. 

Christianity itself emerged from Judaism inside the Greco-Roman world and absorbed and assimilated a great deal from that world. Medieval Christian thinkers and theologians leaned heavily on Greek metaphysics and Roman law. Ideas like natural law, logos, virtue ethics, rational inquiry and civic duty were not Christian inventions. Stoicism was a huge influence. 

Later, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment revived and reinterpreted many pre-Christian traditions, often in direct tension with Church authority. Lucretius and Epicurean thought are a useful example: materialist, empirical, suspicious of fear-driven religion, and focused on reducing suffering in this life rather than preparing for some deferred afterlife. 

In fact, modern Western thought draws from many different streams simultaneously: Athens, Rome, Jerusalem, Renaissance humanism, science, secular critique, classical republicanism, and yes, Christianity too. 

So I find the claim that Western civilisation is “rooted in Christian values” rather silly. Western civilisation is a layered, quarrelsome inheritance, full of argument, borrowing, rebellion and reinvention. It also absorbed ideas from other civilisations and influenced them in return. 

I think it is probably more helpful to think of it as a compost heap, rather than as a refined cathedral. As with most compost heaps, quite a lot grew out of it. Some of it quite good. Some of it rather nasty.

Jaffa

 History matters, especially in conflicts where national narratives selectively weaponise memory.

Jaffa was a major Arab city before 1948, and many Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled during the war. That is part of its history and should not be erased or minimised.

Yet there are populist and ahistorical narratives that present Jaffa as some timeless “ancient Palestinian city”. Jaffa is one of the oldest cities in the eastern Mediterranean. It has Canaanite, Egyptian, Jewish, Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Crusader, Ottoman and British Mandate layers. In Greek mythology, Jaffa is tied to the myth of Andromeda and Perseus. After Alexander, it passed through the Hellenistic kingdoms before later becoming part of the Roman and Byzantine eastern Mediterranean.

The city came under Arab-Islamic rule after the 7th-century conquest of the Levant. Over time, through settlement, conversion, language change, trade, local continuity and Ottoman-era urban growth, Jaffa became an Arab-majority city. That is its history. It does not make it an exclusively Arab or Palestinian city “from antiquity”.

Framing it this way also erases the actual context of 1947-48: the civil war after the UN partition vote, attacks and counterattacks between Arab and Jewish militias, the rejection of partition by Arab and Palestinian leadership, and then the invasion by surrounding Arab states after Israel declared independence. The Nakba is what emerged from that war. At roughly the same historical moment, ancient Jewish communities across much of the Middle East and North Africa were themselves expelled, destroyed or forced into flight, with many eventually resettling in Israel.

Some people also invoke Jaffa to misrepresent the EU position regarding textbooks. European criticism of Palestinian textbooks is not about Palestinians mentioning Jaffa. The documented concerns are about antisemitic material, glorification of violence, and maps that erase Israel entirely. These criticisms are valid.

Attempts to collapse centuries of layered history and a complex modern conflict into a single uninterrupted morality tale with only one actor and one source of agency are propaganda. History is more complicated than that.  And unless one gets the history right, one risks misdiagnosing both the conflict and its possible solutions.