The Grassroots Creation

By Sally Morem

The ancient questions are being asked again with renewed vigor. Who are
we? Why are we here? How did everything come to be?

Two armies have taken their stands in the last two centuries on question such
as these. They face each other across a wide philosophical gulf. On one
side, the scientists with exhaustive observations, measurements and
theorizing. On the other side, the theologians with thoughts and revelations
of the Infinite and its relationship with the Finite.

Many scientists describe a universe of chance. Human beings, life, the

Earth, the stars, and the galaxies came into being accidentally, against all
odds. They maintain their precarious existence in the face of certain
destruction. Entropy--the force of disintegration--dooms all of creation to
the irrevocable loss of usable energy until there is nothing.

Some theologians assert that the destiny of all things was written into the
fabric of the universe in one brief, glorious burst of creativity. This is the
scripted universe. God is the Great Designer, ordering all things, including
the lives of human beings, in the day of creation. We are to recite our lines
and play our parts as dutiful actors.

Meanwhile, separately and ignorant of each other's work, biologists,

physicists, meteorologists, mathematicians and computer scientists have
begun to detect the faint outlines of a third way of looking at the universe. A
self-creating universe in which chance plays but a part but does not rule. A
free universe which is not constrained by the blueprints of a Cosmic Plan. A
universe in which complexity is built up through time instead of being torn
down.

Here, elementary particles, atoms, molecules, stars, galaxies, and all manner
of life, including us, partake in the development of processes more vast and
grand than scientists or theologians had ever imagined. Here, universal
structures move from the simple to the complex, from lower to higher levels
of capability. Here, all energy and matter reveal the emergent properties of
orderly chaos inherent in The Grassroots Creation.

The Information Universe

With the improvement of electronic communications systems, such as radar,

television, and telemetry after World War II, it became clear to scientists and
engineers that they needed a means of predicting rates of accuracy for the
transmission of messages.

In 1948, Bell Labs published two papers written by Claude Shannon,

consisting of a set of theorems on the problem of sending messages. Jeremy
Campbell explains the importance of Shannon's theorems in his book,
"Grammatical Man": "By treating information in clearly defined but wholly
abstract terms, Shannon was able to generalize it, establishing laws that hold
good not for a few types of information, but for all kinds, everywhere.
While his papers may appear quite abstruse and technical at first reading,
they offer new ways of looking at world processes which seem
incomprehensible when views through the lens of classical ideas. Their full
meaning still has not been exhausted. In spite of the fact that the theorems
of information theory were intended chiefly for radio and telephone
engineers, they can be used to investigate ANY system in which a 'message'
is sent from one place to another."

Information theory was born.

It started as any other scientific theory, making predictions about events

using laws and equations. Then it grew into a universal principle.
Information specifies shape and function. It orders matter and energy into
meaningful patterns. It is abstraction. It is pattern.

Why is the world full of the most improbable kinds of order when chaos is a
far more probable state for the world to be in? Information theory translates
this overwhelming question into a more precise and a more useful one: Why
are there messages instead of mere noise?

A Harvard astronomer, David Layzer, proposed that the universe began in

utmost simplicity. No structure, no pattern, no information. In other words,
the Big Bang was very "noisy!" As the universe began to expand, structure
appeared. Elementary particles emerged and joined together to form atoms
as the universe cooled enough for structure to become stable. The
information content of the universe grew and continues to grow today.

This explains the existence of messages. Information can be generated and

retained under these circumstances. This also means that the universe
always contains more information now than it did a moment ago. As I write
these words and you read them, we create information.

Information by its very definition is unpredictable. A message, in order to

be a message, must deliver novelty. Completely predictable information is
redundant: It is a recording of an old message. Thus, as the universe
generates new information, its future state must be considered unknowable.
It is open to the totally unexpected.

Even so, redundancy does help to get a message delivered. If noise destroys
part of a message, the whole message can still be reconstructed if it is coded
properly. Nature makes uncountably large numbers of copies of its
messages in the form of cells, leaves, and children.

Redundancy can be nested. Brief messages may be embedded in a longer

message to allow for self-correction. Biologists believe that the genes in
DNA strings incorporate such a system as a control mechanism for RNA
protein building machines. "Letters" in the genetic code may form
overlapping "words" allowing many messages to be sent in what would
appear to be a short code, yet maintaining redundancy so that the messages
are not garbled.

The universe is an information-generating engine ignited by the Big Bang

and powered by its own expansion. In this case, the medium truly IS the
message.

The Chaotic Universe

Information is seen as an orderly arrangement which can be communicated

and understood. But what message could we code that would explain
nature's chaotic structures--cloud formations, turbulence in the ocean,
fluctuations in wildlife populations or in stock market prices, oscillations in
heart muscle tissue or in the firing of neurons in the brain? Such processes
are full of irregularities and discontinuities. Does this mean they are nothing
but noise?

James Gleick, in his book, "Chaos," shows that these processes, apparently
chaotic on the surface, have a kind of order at deeper levels.

Gleick tells us how Edward Lorenz, a meteorologist and mathematician,

discovered in the early 1960s the first of many mathematical constructs that
make up what is now known as chaos theory. Lorenz tried to imagine the
unnamably large number of molecules in the atmosphere and the
incomprehensibly complex ways in which they must interact. He suspected
that it would be impossible to make accurate long-range weather forecasts as
a result.

He decided to try to mimic a weather system in a simplified manner with

computer graphics. Even this simple model never found a steady state as
weather patterns almost, but never quite, repeated themselves.

As a result of the instability shown by this model, Lorenz postulated that the
real atmosphere is full of points of instability--areas which could change
their state at any time for any reason, affect their neighbors, and possibly
affect the entire system. Theoretically, the beating of the wings of a
butterfly in Peking could create thunderstorms over New York a month later.

And yet the whole system exhibits an overall pattern of surprising stability.
Lorenz's figures, plotted on a graph, showed that the weather follows a line
that almost, but never quite, repeats its trajectory. This line is called a
Strange Attractor. As the figures are plotted, the resulting line wraps around
two or more points in the graph. Unlike an ordinary graph in which points
are placed in sequence, any point thus plotted will always show up in the
Strange Attractor, but its specific location will always be unpredictable.
This curious combination of order and chaos is found everywhere in chaotic
systems.

Jupiter is a rather spectacular example. After centuries of scientific

conjecture, the Voyager space probes showed that the Great Red Spot is a
vast hurricane that has lasted for thousands of years. Voyager photos reveal
that the Spot is filled with eddies within eddies of swirling gas, appearing
and disappearing over time. But the continued existence of the Spot as a
whole is a mystery. Jupiter is a huge ball of chaotic gases, and yet this
island of relative stability persists.

Astronomer Philip Marcus programmed a computer with a series of Fluid

Equations to model the Jovian weather system. Brightly colored graphics
showed the formation of swirls and the beginnings of a large spot made up
of smaller eddies. His computer-generated Great Red Spot grew and
became stable.

Marcus ran the system again and again, always with the same results. It
turned out that the Great Red Spot is a self-organizing system set in motion
by the rapid rotation of Jupiter and the strong Coriolis Effect which causes
eddies to rotate in opposite directions on either side of the equator.

The disorderly behavior of weather systems demonstrates the creative power

of chaotic processes. Against all apparent logic, chaos is comprised of
orderly complexity--richly organized patterns of stable and unstable areas,
finite and infinite complexity normally associated only with living
organisms.

Scientists who work on chaos theory find computer graphics to be

indispensable for studying the build-up and destruction of chaotic systems.
The glowing enhanced colors serve as distinct markers for areas that would
be too difficult to track otherwise. Scientists are normally trained to break
problems apart and solve them. Graphics give them a real intuitive sense of
whole systems by displaying them in living color on the computer screen.
So, along with a new scientific theory, chaos researchers may also be
providing us with tools that will allow us to learn in truly novel ways.

Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers, "in Order out of Chaos," described an
experiment on turbulence which gave scientists profound insights into the
nature of chaotic systems. A liquid was enclosed in a box. As the box was
heated from underneath, the liquid formed long tubes of rising hot material
and sinking material that had cooled. When the heat was turned up, the
tubes split into four, eight, sixteen--until the system broke down into chaos.
But this chaos had a discernable order.

"Indeed, while turbulent motion appears as irregular or chaotic on the

macroscopic scale, it is, on the contrary, highly organized on the
microscopic scale. The multiple space and time scales involved in
turbulence correspond to the coherent behavior of millions and millions of
molecules. Viewed in this way, the transition from laminar flow to
turbulence is a process of self-organization. Part of the energy of the
system, which in laminar flow was in the thermal motion of the molecules, is
being transferred to macroscopic organized motion."

Prigogine and Stengers went on to describe the bizarre chemical reactions

produced in what is called a Brusselator. Four chemicals are placed in an
enclosed container. They react, producing two new chemicals which
catalyze the production of each other. As soon as one of the chemicals
exceeds a certain concentration, the production of both begins to oscillate
regularly. The Brusselator becomes a chemical clock.

"Suppose we have two kinds of molecules, 'red' and 'blue.' Because of the
chaotic motion of the molecules, we would expect that at a given moment
we would have more red molecules, say, in the left part of a vessel. Then a
bit later more blue molecules would appear, and so on. The vessel would
appear to us as 'violet,' with occasional irregular flashes of red or blue.
However, this is NOT what happens with a chemical clock; here the system
is all blue, then it abruptly changes its color to red, and again to blue."

Chemical clocks show an incredible degree of order in what would appear to

be random motions of molecules. They work as if they had a way of
instantly communicating the total state of the system to each molecule
within the system. They have been found everywhere in chemistry.
Chemical clocks may provide the underlying order found in organisms--
certainly the catalytic effects of enzymes and hormones are similar.

Consider how autocatalytic systems could have evolved. Evolution selected

for needed chemical reactions while unneeded ones were blocked.
Generations of organisms developed the ability to sense and communicate
the lack of needed chemicals internally and correct the imbalance.
Organisms became yet another form of self-regulated systems.

DNA can be seen as a permanent information storage system for regulating

the myriads of chemical reactions in the body. It guides the system as a
whole and replicates itself when necessary. Thus, DNA is at once a product
of a long history of chemical evolution and a driver of future evolutionary
change.

Benoit Mandelbrot, the mathematician, noticed that similar chaotic but

orderly systems existed in widely different scientific discipline. He had
originally been working on the distribution of large and small incomes in an
economy and had made a diagram of the peculiar relationships he had
noticed in the figures. When he was invited to give a talk on his findings at
Harvard, he saw an identical diagram on an economist's blackboard. But the
diagram represented cotton prices.

He became curious. So, he studied cotton prices which dated back over a
century on the New York futures exchange and discovered that the same
pattern of change recurred over and over in different time frames. Patterns
of daily, monthly, and yearly price changes matched perfectly, even though
each particular price was unpredictable.

Mandelbrot continued to look for, and find, that pattern everywhere. He

studied coastlines and discovered that at each level of magnification the
coastlines retained the same complex assortment of bays and peninsulas. As
in the cotton price data, coastlines contain the same amount of detail at all
scales.

Mandelbrot was on his way to defining fractal geometry.

Gleick explains that the word "fractal" is derived from the Latin "fractus,"
meaning "broken." It is also related to the English words "fracture" and
"fraction," which accurately reflect how fractal geometry breaks up the
world and reconnects it with its own rules. Euclidean geometry describes
lines, planes, squares, and spheres--abstractions of universal shapes. But
reality is filled with rough, jagged surfaces. Fractal geometry deals with
these.

Fractals consist of nested patterns. The overall structure is repeated with

some variation all the way to infinity. There is no loss of detail even at high
magnification. Consider the most striking form of fractals--the Mandelbrot
Set. This set is a collection of points on a graph generated by taking a
complex number, squaring it, adding the first number, squaring it--over and
over again. If the number remains finite, it's in the set.

Gleick conveyed his astonishment at the beauty of these fractals: "The

Mandelbrot Set is the most complex object in mathematics, it's admirers like
to say. An eternity would not be enough time to see it all, its disks studded
with prickly thorns, its spirals and filaments curling outward and around,
bearing bulbous molecules that hang, infinitely variegated, like grapes on
God's personal vine."

Just as the Mandelbrot Set contains large numbers of shapes in a small area,
it is possible to pack a vast amount of area into a small volume by using
three-dimensional fractals. This is exactly what biological systems do.
Miles of veins and arteries, and arrays of nerve cells are arranged artfully in
a human body. Acres of bronchial tissue are layered into a pair of lungs.
Muscle cells in the heart and neurons in the brain also show fractal
organization.

Tree branches, leaves, roots, snowflakes, cloud formations, mountain ranges,

river systems, and galaxies all show the distinct pattern within pattern which
is the mark of fractal geometry. Fractal geometry can be found everywhere
in nature. Apparently it is one of the most efficient ways to arrange matter.

Fractals can also be used to model events happening in time, such as

changes in cotton prices and the weather. This amazing versatility can be
explained if fractals are thought of as abstract pictures of the self-organizing
forces of nature. In this respect, fractal geometry strongly resembles
information theory. The unpredictability of its parts allows it to generate
information while its overall redundant structure protects the message it
bears.

The double helix of DNA can be seen as a fractal that acts as an information
storage and retrieval system. It codes for redundancy. It constructs a body,
each cell of which contains enough information to construct another body.
DNA tells messenger RNA to "create this structure--over and over again,"
allowing life to preserve and transmit its message to the future.

The Cooperative Universe

Information theory and chaos theory help us to understand how atoms and
molecules combine to produce structures that grow more complex and
capable through time. They also explain the activities of much higher levels
of organization such as individual life forms, plant and animal ecologies, and
the human mind. These processes make us what we are. We must
understand them to see what we might become.

Cooperative behavior can emerge from the apparently random activities of

very simple creatures. Such creatures don't possess nearly enough of the
required brainpower to be able to make conscious choices, while cooperative
behavior from our human vantage point normally indicates the presence of
choice.

Prigogine and Stengers describe how the construction of a termites' nest

actually appears to start as disorderly activity: "At this stage, they transport
and drop lumps of earth in a random fashion, but in doing so they
impregnate the lumps with a hormone that attracts other termites.... As
termites become more numerous in a region, the probability of their
dropping lumps of earth there increases, leading in turn to a still higher
concentration of the hormone. In this way 'pillars' are formed, separated by
a distance related to the range over which the hormone spreads."

The termites continue to build up their nest in this way while being guided
by the ever-increasing amounts of hormone in the work areas. A disorderly
activity becomes orderly dues to exponentially rising activity in specific
sites chosen randomly. Thus, a complex structure, such as a termites' nest,
can grow from the efforts of individuals with little information on what other
individuals are doing and with no central planning.

Robert Axelrod suspected that individual humans could form cooperative

relationships with one another while pursuing their own self interest. He
explored cooperative systems by using a computerized version of the game,
Prisoner's Dilemma, and discussed the results in his book, "The Evolution of
Cooperation."

There are two players in this game. During each move, they have the option
of cooperating or defecting. They are not bound by their previous choices.
If they both cooperate, they are both rewarded. If one defects, the other gets
nothing while the defector gets a greater reward than when both cooperate.
But if they both defect, both get a very small reward. The players are not
permitted to communicate, except by announcing their choices. They must
operate on blind trust (or mistrust).

What is the best strategy to use in this game? The way the reward system is
set up, BOTH players get the most if they cooperate throughout the game.
But, there's always the temptation to defect in order to receive the higher
reward.
Axelrod ran a computerized Prisoner's Dilemma tournament, inviting
programmers to submit software that employed various strategies of play.
These programs embodied a variety of rules for cooperating or defecting,
based on the other player's previous moves. The most effective program in
point totals after round-robin play was TIT FOR TAT. This program always
cooperated on the first move, and thereafter cooperated or defected
according to what the other player did on the previous move. This simple
strategy allowed TIT FOR TAT to get a wide variety of programs to
cooperate with it.

By studying the results of the tournament, Axelrod discovered that

cooperative relationships become stable when all parties see the relationship
lasting for a significant amount of time, when cooperative behavior brings
rewards unattainable otherwise and when other parties are able and willing
to retaliate swiftly for any defection.

Cooperative relationships spring up under the most adverse situations.

During World War I, the men in the trenches would not fire on one another
during lulls between large battles unless directly ordered to do so by a
superior officer. Generals tried their best to break up the cooperative
relationship along the front, but with little success.

Many animal species establish territories. This apparently conflict-ridden

practice actually engenders cooperation because it allows individuals to have
continuing relationships with their neighbors. The front in World War I
often remained stationary for months, allowing soldiers to get to know one
another across the barbed wire and giving them time to trust each other.

In humans, the tendency toward cooperation is magnified by the human

traits of self-reflection and ability to plan ahead. Watch people in any large
convention hall. Notice how close they sit together without fighting. This
could never happen with a hall full of uncaged dogs.

The huge array of human institutions that require people to cooperate sight
unseen testifies to the power of this deeply engrained behavioral system. In
a wide range of situations, cooperation is the most effective strategy for all
sides. The world is not normally a zero-sum game and one is not required to
overcome others to win. It shouldn't surprise us to find the cooperative
strategy as pervasive as it is, especially considering the powerful universal
forces that undergird it and shape it.
A mind can be described as a cooperative venture, a society of many small
processes combining into larger, more powerful processes. One of the most
powerful of these is the conscious self.

Douglas Hofstadter described these processes with a poetic analogy in

"Godel, Escher, Bach": "If it were possible to schematize this whole image,
there would be a gigantic forest of symbols linked to each other by tangly
lines like vines in a tropical jungle--this would be the top level, the Tangled
Hierarchy where thoughts really flow back and forth. This is the elusive
level of MIND."

Hofstadter's idea of Tangled Hierarchy fits in with what is now known about
the operation of the brain. Loops within loops of activated neurons, signals,
and symbols of thought create a conscious mind which, in turn, reaches
down and alters its own lower-level processes. Mind grows out of pattern of
patterns and establishes itself as the great pattern.

Marvin Minsky in "The Society of Mind" postulates that this layered

intelligence comes into being during our long childhood. We learn about the
world by inferring the existence of simple rules and conducting experiments
to see if they really work. Children do this unconsciously by bouncing balls,
building block towers and knocking them down, taking things off other
things, hiding things and finding them--in other words, by playing.

We build a hierarchy of knowledge about the world in these earliest of

experiments. Groups of rules generate meta-rules, which generate meta-
meta-rules, and so on. Over years of hard practice, we imbue our world and
ourselves with meaning.

Minsky explodes a common misconception about common sense:

"Common sense is not a simple thing. Instead, it is an immense society of
hard-earned practical ideas--of multitudes of life-earned rules and
exceptions, dispositions and tendencies, balances and checks."

And now, we arrive at the ancient mystery. How can these neurons, signals
and symbols build something as powerfully real as the sense of self?
Hofstadter defined the self as the reflective symbol in the mind. Free will
arises as the self symbol interacts with and changes the other higher level
symbols of the mind deliberately. You have a thought. It leads to another
thought. You decide you don't like that thought, so you think of something
else instead. You decide what to change. You act freely. And you realize
that your ARE acting freely.

Hofstadter explains more fully: "A very important side effect of the self-
subsystem is that it can play the role of 'soul' in the following sense: In
communicating constantly with the rest of the subsystem and symbols in the
brain, it keeps track of what symbols are active, and in what way. This
means that it has to have symbols for mental activity--in other words,
symbols for symbols, and symbols for the actions of symbols."

When we think we are most separate from the universe, it turns out we're
that much more closely linked with the processes that made us. We are as
much a part of the natural order as leaves spread out in the sunlight, atoms
forming in the crucible of a supernova, and a child at play.

The Unfinished Universe

Louise B. Young has written one of the most comprehensive surveys of

recent scientific discoveries describing the universe as a place of growing
complexity and increasing form--"The Unfinished Universe." As the title
indicates, Young postulates that the universe and everything in it, including
us, are not finished artifacts, but are in fact systems in the process of
becoming.

Process rules our universe. Young illustrates this by walking us through

creation step by step: The Big Bang bringing forth energy and matter, space
and time; quarks forming sub-atomic particles, which in turn form atoms;
atoms bonding themselves together into molecules; molecules assembling
themselves into crystals and living matter; and life entering into complex
symbiotic relationships.

"There is something within life, within nonliving matter, too, that is not
passive--a nisus, a striving that is stimulated by challenge. Steadily
throughout geological time life has moved out from easy to difficult
environments and now has populated almost every nook and cranny of the
globe, from the frozen wastes of Antarctica to the boiling sulfur-laden vents
at the bottom of the sea."

So, why do many scientists insist that everything is falling apart? The
answer lies with the often misquoted and misunderstood Second Law of
Thermodynamics which states that every spontaneous change is
accompanied by an increase in the randomness of the energy distribution
within a closed system.

But Earth is an open system, bathed in energy from an outside source. Open
systems not only allow for the growth of complexity, they encourage it.

We must seriously question our definitions of randomness and orderliness.

Seen one way, a supernova explosion increases chaos; seen another way, it
increases order by building up heavier atoms and sowing the universe with
them.

Thermodynamics is the study of heat distribution, or how rapidly atoms are

moving and where. The higher levels of organization in the universe are
unaffected by it. Scientists have mistakenly applied the Second Law to these
form-building processes, ignoring the fact that these are organized from
within and can repair and protect themselves from outside disruption, and
extend their existence and their progeny through space and time.

Contrary to the claims of evolutionists such as Steven Jay Gould, there is

genuine progress in the universe over time. Young asserts that the growth of
complexity and capability is a fundamental property of universal processes.
This includes us:

"The magnitude of the mechanism may be an indication of the VALUE of

the product. Not size nor power but potential is the true measure of
importance--potential realized through the meticulous construction of higher
and higher degrees or organization, from quarks to the finely wrought
molecules of living things. Generations of stars were required to synthesize
the elements essential to life. The time required to mold these miniature
masterpieces of design was a least twelve billion years."

A human being is not just a collection of chemicals worth $1.97 on the

market. We are fashioned from the finest materials that have been under
development since the Big Bang. Our minds weave magic in the form of
thoughts and dreams. Each of our decisions helps bring forth changes that
may one day affect the future evolution of the entire cosmos. As freely
acting self-symbols, as agents of truly revolutionary change, we have far
more responsibility than we've ever dreamed of. It's time we acted as if we
knew it.

Our very existence may be crucial right now to the working out of universal
processes. John D. Barrow and Frank J Tipler have studied a number of
striking coincidences in the specific numerical strength of the four
fundamental forces of the universe. A change in any one of these would
radically alter the structure of the universe and thus make the development
of life impossible.

Barrow and Tipler believe that the odds against this array of coincidences
occurring randomly are too high, and therefore, they are not coincidences.
We human beings grew out of this particular arrangement of fundamental
forces. We observe them at work in our world. As a result of these facts,
Barrow and Tipler assert in "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" that all
scientific observations must take the existence of the observer into account.

The Weak Anthropic Principle makes this point concisely: The conditions
under which scientists make their observations must include those necessary
to give rise to intelligent life--and scientists! We cannot make the
observations of conditions which make it impossible for us to exist. We are
limited to our own user-friendly universe.

And then, Barrow and Tipler grow bold. The Strong Anthropic Principle:
The universe MUST admit the creation of observers within it at some stage.

They then ask themselves why, and focus in on the role of the observer. The
Participatory Anthropic Principle: The observer is needed to bring reality
into focus. The universe is brought into existence by the collective
observations of all observers, past, present, and future.

Why would the universe go to all this trouble if everything is going to die?
They address that philosophical quandary with the Final Anthropic
Principle: The universe not only must give rise to life, but once life is
created, it will endure forever. It will become infinitely knowledgeable and
mold the universe to its will. Everything will have been brought into
existence.

Is this where universal processes are taking us? Will our descendants in the
distant future reach back in time to arrange the universe so that we and they
can come into existence? Does the universe close its own circle? Or, do our
descendants throw a long shadow of apparent coincidences down the
corridor of time to us in the form of self-organizing principles of physics as
they move toward the sunset of existence?

Such questions vastly outdistance any ability to answer. Young shows us

the difficulty in predicting what is to come. "The new whole will, by
definition, possess qualities which are not present in any of its parts alone.
So the metaphors based on our present models--a cosmic mind, a universal
culture, a nervous system for the planet--will, I suspect, be quite inadequate
to describe the form that has not yet come into being. Our most imaginative
projections will pale beside the reality that takes shape tomorrow."

We ask for meaning and purpose from outside ourselves, but these must
grow within us or they are not real. Our purpose is IN our search for
meaning. We are given no direction or guidance, save that of the processes
which created us and sustain us. We must direct ourselves. Each of us,
alone and together, must participate by choosing, learning and growing. We
weave the pattern of The Grassroots Creation.

Bibliography
Axelrod, Robert,”The Evolution of Cooperation," New York: Basic Books, 1984.

Barrow, John D. and Frank J, Tipler, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," New
York: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Campbell, Jeremy, "Grammatical Man," New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982.

Gleick, James, "Chaos," New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982.

Hofstadter, Douglas, "Godel, Escher, Bach," New York: Vantage Books, 1979.

Minsky, Marvin, "The Society of Mind," New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985.

Prigogine, Ilya and Isabelle Stengers, "Order Out of Chaos," New York:
Bantam Books, 1984.

Young, Louise B.,”The Unfinished Universe," New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986.