Status
Available
Call number
Publication
Harper Perennial (1990), Edition: Reprint, 224 pages
Description
Until recently, such phenomena as the volatility of weather systems, the fluctuation of the shock market, or the random firing of neurons in the brain were considered too "noisy" and complex to be probed by science. But now, with the aid of high-speed computers, scientists have been able to penetrate a reality that is changing the way we perceive the universe. Their findings -- the basis for chaos theory -- represent one of the most exciting scientific pursuits of our time. No better introduction to this find could be found than John Briggs and F. David Peat's Turbulent Mirror. Together, they explore the many faces of chaos and reveal how its law direct most of the processes of everyday life and how it appears that everything in the universe is interconnected -- discovering an "emerging science of wholeness." Turbulent Mirror introduces us to the scientists involved in study this endlessly strange field; to the theories that are turning our perception of the world on its head; and to the discoveries in mathematics, biology, and physics that are heralding a revolution more profound than the one responsible for producing the atomic bomb. With practical applications ranging from the control of traffic flow and the development of artifical intelligence to the treatment of heart attacks and schizophrenia, chaos promises to be an increasingly rewarding area of inquiry -- of interest to everyone.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member RandyStafford
My reactions upon reading this book in 1990.
As befits the authors' dualistic structure for the book and their constant emphasis on the shifts between chaos and order, I found this book alternately exhilarating and annoying.
I found parts quite interesting: the explanation here of fractals helped me
The annoyance comes in several forms. First, in trying to be simple and nonmathematical, the authors obscure some issues. However, my main objections to parts of this book are philosophical. While certain types of social "sciences" (notably economics) have contributed to the development of chaos science, I dislike Briggs and Peat using chaos as what I call a "grand unified theory", a metaphor and paradigm through which to see and explain natural and social phenomena. Their view seems justified for physics, biology, etc. but I'm less sure -- far less sure -- it's justified in using it to study history, social organizations and the makeup of human. However, Briggs and Peat seem to want to run everything through their grand unified theory. Whereas other disciplines talk about conditioning (psychology), influences (history, literature), relationships, etc., Briggs and Peat seem to want to label almost all interactive relationships with the chaos term of feedback. Thus we talk of the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution as feedback and speculate whether or not evolution is a chaotic process -- with the interesting note that chaotic behavior seems to slant chemical behavior toward amino acids and such more than mere chance would or the development of organizations. This all may be valid, but it also smacks of metaphor and paradigm run amok.
My biggest objection to this book is that Briggs and Peat seem to be examples of that strange type of scientist who are, in some sense, mystical and anti-sicence, anti-rational, anti-technology. There are constant allusions to Chinese myths including the title. This may, of itself, be fine as example and metaphor of chaotic behavior, but, taken with other things, this is evidence of that pro-Eastern religion, anti-West stance that crops up in some younger scientists. They speak about chaos' holistic aspect, how it cuts across disciplines. They are quite right to do so. Chaos, as James Gleick pointed out in a book of the same title, may save science from the perils of specialization. Specialization was a necessary outcropping probably of the quest for scientific truth, but Briggs and Peat pay homage, especially in the book's last chapter, to the holistic idea as opposition to "reductionism"; it is a Buddha-like reverence for nature's One. But it also seems to be an attack on traditional science and technology, on the attempt to understand, and especially to control, the parts of nature. Briggs and Peat seem to think that reductionism is not only intellectually incomplete but that its fruits are bad, almost morally tainted they imply. They ridicule reductionist science's attempts to control nature and correct past mistakes. Specifically, they ridicule an alleged proposal to reverse ozone depletion by putting frozen ozone in space. It probably is unworkable scheme, but Briggs and Peat's objetions are philosophical, not rational and technical.
The authors see chaos as showing us we cannot know everything, we have limitations. Chaos does show us not everything is predictable, but I contend it will advance our abilities, we will know more precisely what we can and can't do even better than now. Chaos will help us predict where we can't now and better know when we can't predict.
To the authors it sees a new Gothic philosophy where there are not only some things "man was not meant to know" but also things man was not meant to do or even think about. Jeremy Rivkin is favorably quoted. In the quote, Rivkin objects to the very words of science "the words of authorship, the words of a creator, an architect, a designer." It is a fatal blow to Briggs' and Peat's philosophical credibility. Any scientist quoting Rivkin in support of their ideas is not thinking. Further references to this quasi-religous prostration before nature, its inherent wonder and unknowability, before the Goddess of Ignorance and an almost literal interpretation of James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis.
As befits the authors' dualistic structure for the book and their constant emphasis on the shifts between chaos and order, I found this book alternately exhilarating and annoying.
I found parts quite interesting: the explanation here of fractals helped me
Show More
understand better their place as intermediaries between two dimensions, solitons (traveling waves of energy that, when conditions are right, travel amazing distances without dissipation), a smattering of info on the way the nervous system is thought to work and how personality and thought may be underpinned biologically by chaos type systems, the problem of three-body orbits, and an interesting theory on how chaotic processs can reconcile classical physics and quantum mechanics, and the ultimate universal apocalypse implied in the theoretical idea of a "vacuum bubble instanton" -- the universe boiling away. The annoyance comes in several forms. First, in trying to be simple and nonmathematical, the authors obscure some issues. However, my main objections to parts of this book are philosophical. While certain types of social "sciences" (notably economics) have contributed to the development of chaos science, I dislike Briggs and Peat using chaos as what I call a "grand unified theory", a metaphor and paradigm through which to see and explain natural and social phenomena. Their view seems justified for physics, biology, etc. but I'm less sure -- far less sure -- it's justified in using it to study history, social organizations and the makeup of human. However, Briggs and Peat seem to want to run everything through their grand unified theory. Whereas other disciplines talk about conditioning (psychology), influences (history, literature), relationships, etc., Briggs and Peat seem to want to label almost all interactive relationships with the chaos term of feedback. Thus we talk of the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution as feedback and speculate whether or not evolution is a chaotic process -- with the interesting note that chaotic behavior seems to slant chemical behavior toward amino acids and such more than mere chance would or the development of organizations. This all may be valid, but it also smacks of metaphor and paradigm run amok.
My biggest objection to this book is that Briggs and Peat seem to be examples of that strange type of scientist who are, in some sense, mystical and anti-sicence, anti-rational, anti-technology. There are constant allusions to Chinese myths including the title. This may, of itself, be fine as example and metaphor of chaotic behavior, but, taken with other things, this is evidence of that pro-Eastern religion, anti-West stance that crops up in some younger scientists. They speak about chaos' holistic aspect, how it cuts across disciplines. They are quite right to do so. Chaos, as James Gleick pointed out in a book of the same title, may save science from the perils of specialization. Specialization was a necessary outcropping probably of the quest for scientific truth, but Briggs and Peat pay homage, especially in the book's last chapter, to the holistic idea as opposition to "reductionism"; it is a Buddha-like reverence for nature's One. But it also seems to be an attack on traditional science and technology, on the attempt to understand, and especially to control, the parts of nature. Briggs and Peat seem to think that reductionism is not only intellectually incomplete but that its fruits are bad, almost morally tainted they imply. They ridicule reductionist science's attempts to control nature and correct past mistakes. Specifically, they ridicule an alleged proposal to reverse ozone depletion by putting frozen ozone in space. It probably is unworkable scheme, but Briggs and Peat's objetions are philosophical, not rational and technical.
The authors see chaos as showing us we cannot know everything, we have limitations. Chaos does show us not everything is predictable, but I contend it will advance our abilities, we will know more precisely what we can and can't do even better than now. Chaos will help us predict where we can't now and better know when we can't predict.
To the authors it sees a new Gothic philosophy where there are not only some things "man was not meant to know" but also things man was not meant to do or even think about. Jeremy Rivkin is favorably quoted. In the quote, Rivkin objects to the very words of science "the words of authorship, the words of a creator, an architect, a designer." It is a fatal blow to Briggs' and Peat's philosophical credibility. Any scientist quoting Rivkin in support of their ideas is not thinking. Further references to this quasi-religous prostration before nature, its inherent wonder and unknowability, before the Goddess of Ignorance and an almost literal interpretation of James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis.
Show Less
LibraryThing member lunaverse
If you're only going to read one book on Chaos/Complexity theory, this is the one. If you're planning to read many, this is a good place to start.
The basic principles behind chaos theory are explained with vivid pictures to ease understanding of the complex (pun) math.
This is possibly the least
It's a real eye-opener to have these memes floating around in your head, as each of us encounters (and are a part of) many complex systems every day.
This seems to be the science behind the ancient Chinese Tao philosophy, and I've made Chaos Theory a major part of my personal spiritual system.
The basic principles behind chaos theory are explained with vivid pictures to ease understanding of the complex (pun) math.
This is possibly the least
Show More
abstract form of math, as it attempts to explain many of the patterns (and randomness) found in nature and life. Everything from fluctuations in animal populations to the ups and downs of Wall Street are modeled and examined in the field of Chaos Theory.It's a real eye-opener to have these memes floating around in your head, as each of us encounters (and are a part of) many complex systems every day.
This seems to be the science behind the ancient Chinese Tao philosophy, and I've made Chaos Theory a major part of my personal spiritual system.
Show Less
Subjects
Language
Original language
English
Physical description
224 p.; 9.25 inches
ISBN
0060916966 / 9780060916961