1. Meaning of Existence

To begin with, the ingredients of our world are energy, matter (a form of energy), space and time. The change in the relationships of matter in time and space subject to the universal laws (which we call the laws of physics) is called ‘information’Explains Meaning
of Existence. The key question is, what happens to the relationships of matter in space and time? Only ten years ago, in 1977 — which is very recent in terms of the history of scientific inquiry — a new answer was given to this question when Dr. Ilya Prigogine, a professor at the Free University of Brussels, won a Nobel PrizePage 99 of
Print Edition in chemistry for proving that there are exceptions to the by then widely accepted Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law says that everything breaks down to its basic component parts. In scientific terms this means that all energy systems (and matter is a form of energy) must break down until they become heat energy. Dr Prigogine proved that this law does not apply to systems which can draw energy from outside themselves, so-called ‘open systems’. (See Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Sengers’ book, Order Out of Chaos, 1984). By drawing energy from outside, open systems can develop order, or grow. Earth is an open system, drawing its energy from the sun. Dr Prigogine’s discovery has become known as the ‘Second Path’ of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also referred to as Entropy and its second path as Negative Entropy, often condensed to negentropy. Entropy is a measure of the state of disorder of a system so negentropy is a measure of the state of order of a system.

The differing properties of matter mean that some matter (and some associations of matter) are less stable than others. When less stable matter breaks down towards heat energy it leaves the more stable matter behind. In turn, the differing stabilities of the various mixtures of these leftovers are similarly ‘investigated’ again leaving those that are more stable. In time only the most stable arrangements are left. The development of disorder or entropy has left — has developed — the most order or negentropy possible. The development of disorder or instability of matter effectively brings about the development of the most order or stability of matter. If we were to keep pulling the weakest fish out of a pond we would in the process be producing a pond full of strong fish. We would be finding the strongest fish. If it were possible, from the properties available to them, the fish would eventually ‘catch on to’ or recognise what was going on and would find ways to actively resist becoming weak. They would refine the art of resisting breakdown. They would learn to develop strength. This is what happened on earth. Eventually systems of matter developed that actively resisted breakdownPage 100 of
Print Edition and began actively developing greater stability and size (by drawing energy from outside the system).

The full version of this book will go into a detailed explanation of the workings of the Second Path of the Second Law of Thermodynamics in terms of the information involved in the development of systems. For now all we need to remember is that information is the change of relationships of matter in time and space and a system is some quantity of elements (the parts) which have been interconnected to form a unified (integrated) whole. We can see straightaway why we had to shy away from describing our world in terms of systems because the definition of systems is nothing less than an admission of the fact of integration — of the significance of internal relationships between things — of the development of wholes — of holism — which we have had to evade. Our world can now be truthfully described in terms of systems since the study of information involved in their development recognises the order and development of matter on earth. (If the reader is interested in a more historical discussion of our recognition of Negative Entropy he or she should read chapter XI:9 of Arthur Koestler’s book Janus, A Summing Up, 1978. Along with Marais and others already mentioned, Koestler was an exceptionally unevasive thinker or prophet.) Another exceptionally unevasive thinker who has acknowledged purposeful development is Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Here is a reference¹ made to the writings of de Chardin by a former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Dr. Jim Cairns:

‘Several years ago I came across the “phenomenon of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin”, which I see often in the words of authorities to have “now reached every corner of the world” . . .de Chardin has convinced people that he has found something of tremendous importance. I cannot say I am exactly clear about what it is.

[After looking at what physics has to say about such things as the Page 101 of
Print Edition ‘Principle of Uncertainty’ which is said to operate at the micro level of existence, Dr. Cairns goes on to say].

. . . I found out that the second law of thermo-dynamics told us that the universe is moving from an orderly to a more disorderly state and, because of that, within a finite time the earth must begin to be unfit for the habitation of man . . . But I found out that this second law of thermo-dynamics applies to a “closed system”, and the planet is not a “closed system”, but is tending towards “maximum entropy”. This seems to mean a balancing of energies rather than an exhaustion or an excess of them . . . This appeared to mean that we are imprisoned not by the system, but by our scientific and other thought models of reality. Well de Chardin is supposed to have broken out of that prison.

“I believe,” he wrote, “I can see a direction and a line of progress for life, a line and a direction which are in fact so well marked that I am convinced their reality will be universally admitted by the science of tomorrow.” Well tomorrow for de Chardin is almost today. The universe it seems is not something that is evolving according to the laws of chance as science appears to assume. That there is an evolution is common ground among scientists, but whether there is a line or direction is a different matter. “Nine out of ten biologists” says Chardin (the best of scientists it seems), will say it is “abundantly clear” that life is not going anywhere, but that matter (and life) is in a state of continuing change “towards more and more improbable forms” . . .

But de Chardin is sure life is development, however, we are “marking time at the moment” because men’s minds are unwilling to recognise that “evolution has a precise orientation”, and “weakened by this” (lack of faith?) the “forces of research are scattered, and there is no determination to build the earth”. . . .’

The Second Path of the Second Law of Thermodynamics or negative entropy refers to both the growth in space of larger amounts of stably associated matterThe nature of God and the refinement in time of more stable arrangements of matter. In systems language, which is our new unevasive language of description, this process is referred to as the development of systems of matter or, in a word,Page 102 of
Print Edition development. Thus the underlying ‘force’ in ‘existence’, its theme or meaning, is to develop order, to bring about the integration of matter, which we have long metaphysically personified as ‘God’. We can see here that monotheism or belief that there is only one God was correct.

We evaded admission of this purpose, the development of integration, and of its reconciliation with ‘God’ because we could not explain why, in apparent contradiction of it, we humans practised divisiveness. We have been upset, in particular egotistical (in competition with the implication that we were bad, preoccupied with establishing our worth, concerned with self, in other words, selfish), aggressive (angry with the unjust criticism of our efforts to self-adjust), alienated (denying the truth of integration) and superficial (refusing to consider profound things — such as integrativeness). Because these are mostly divisive or disintegrative rather than integrative traits we have lived in fear of integrative meaningParadox of the
Human Condition or God. However, while we apparently have been unGodly we have always ‘known’ that the full truth, when found, would explain our upset human condition. Our task has been to learn why we weren’t bad, to understand what caused us to behave the way we did. If we admitted to integrative meaning, to purposeful development, without explaining our divisiveness we only added to our sense of guilt. This was the paradox within which we struggled. Before humanity and its tool, science, could admit to meaning and purpose we had to be able to explain rather than criticise our condition. We had to get through to the whole compassionate truth because partial truths often left us unbearably criticised. Critical partial truths such as integrative meaning had to be evaded.

The way we scientifically evaded the existence of purposeful development was to admit only thatThe role of religion there had been change, which we termed ‘evolution’, without acknowledging it had any meaning purpose. Evolution was our evasive scientific word for developPage 103 of
Print Edition ment, while ‘God’ was our safely abstract (sufficiently remote not to directly criticise us) ‘fundamental’ admission of the ‘absolute’ fact of the development of integration and thus purpose. We enshrined the absolute truths in our religions. In this way, with the absolute truths as goals before us, but with excuses or evasions for our condition to sustain us, we strove forward, progressing in hope and faith that we would find the full truth before our upset condition led to our self-destruction as a species. We progressed towards a day of eventual enlightenment or reconciliation — which has now arrived.

The hierarchy of development of systems or of integration which has already been outlined is: energy forms fundamental particles → (which integrate to form) simple nucleii → complex nucleii → atoms or the 109 known elements → molecules → compounds → virus-like organisms → single-celled organisms → multicellular organisms → (A) → the integration of multicellular organisms (formation of societies of members of a species, called species societies, leading to the integration of all the members of the species into one individual called the specie individual) → integration of all species → integration of all things (the maturation of the development [of order] of the universe). Humans are currently in the final stage of the development or integration of the specie individual of humanity (transition point ‘A’).

_________

¹Nation Review newspaper, September 8-14, 1978.