From Heraclitus to Entropy: The Logic of Persistence in a Universe of Change

Thermodynamics as the Basis of Change

More than many moons ago, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said that “Into the same rivers we step and do not step, we are and we are not.” More than a mere, however brilliant, observation, this was to serve as a definition of the cosmos’ underlying essence. The only constant is change, even if under a facade of static order and stability. At its core, it is that the cosmos is to be defined as but a perpetuating process.

Now, emerging from the tremendous advancement of our science, it seems that the observation of Heraclitus is to be found irrefutable. The laws of thermodynamics make clear that so long as a system maintains a real temperature, the particles within must necessarily be in a state of motion. Temperature is equivalent to the average kinetic energy of  particles. That is a definition. This may then suggest that a reduction of temperature to absolute zero would thus lead to a reduction of motion to absolute zero. However, it is simply not so simple. Atoms follow the way of quantum mechanics and, as Heisenberg showed, this way is one of essential uncertainty. One cannot make a system of uncertainty certain, nor can one make a system of probability absolute. The purpose of this explanation is to make undeniably true that our cosmos, at its most fundamental level, is no different to how Heraclitus put it: in a constant state of flux.

However, in making this point, it is important to steer clear of conflating empirical observation with purpose. The cosmos is a process, but it is nevertheless proceeding toward something. I am not here ascribing a divine mandate to the universe, nor am I claiming that the universe is itself conscious. I am merely taking note of where things move, and extracting patterns from such. Let me first illustrate this with a few examples.

Entropy is the Driver of Thermodynamic Change

Earlier I used thermodynamics to exemplify the changing nature of our physical world. I did not, however, state how this change manifests in the grand play of our reality. The second law of thermodynamics is a principle known as entropy. Entropy describes the tendency of a thermodynamic system to, over the course of time, continually transition from a higher-energy state to a lower-energy state. In other words, imagine you have a box that is 50 degrees celsius inside. If that box is contained within a larger box, at room temperature, the innermost box will eventually settle to roughly the same temperature as the outside box – a little above room temperature. 

This law plays out across the entirety of the universe, with the imaginary boxes representing any thermodynamic system, whether it be a planet, a galaxy, or indeed a box. To clarify, it is not that this energy (note it is not exclusively thermal energy) is simply being lost – for that is forbidden by the first law of thermodynamics – but rather it is being dissipated evenly throughout a broader system. This is so much so that as the universe continues to play out over the next several trillion years, we will at some time approach a state of near-complete homogeneity and inactivity. Everything will be becoming of a cold uniformity, lacking all forms of concentrated energy. For our purposes, it is worthwhile that we now face the question of why it is that entropy steers our cosmic ship in such a direction.

Technically speaking, the question must be answered from a microscopic perspective. The lower the energy of a system, the more potential microscopic configurations can exist while maintaining the same energy state. On the other hand, a high-energy system is more fragile, and will unavoidably demand more difficulty in its maintenance. To put it more broadly, our universe is perpetually proceeding toward a state of greater stability. That is the driver of our universe, even if unconscious. Entropy describes this at a fundamental level, but it doesn’t cease to take effect upon further scaling. Biological systems move toward homeostasis, even sociological systems move toward social equilibrium, imposing organisation on conflicts of sizes big and small, ensuring anarchy doesn’t prevail. Whether it be an atom, an organism, or a society, things persist when they are stable.

The Survival of the Most Relevant

We have so far come to the idea that the cosmos is in a perpetual proceeding toward stability, and that persistence can be considered the temporal manifestation of functional stability. But I would now like to lay out what informs stability, and what makes it functional. To this, I would use the word relevance, and I would define it as the most optimally suited option under the given circumstances. To some degree this may seem self-evident under the consideration of what stability looks like, and as such not worthy of a separate word. However, I think the separation of stability and relevance is worthwhile, and I will first highlight this in the context of genes.

It is well known in evolutionary theory that the goal of genes is to survive, to persist. To persist, as I defined earlier, is to remain functionally stable. Fortunately, in the case of natural selection, the preconditions for persistence have been well-developed, and can be showcased with fairly simple logic. For a gene to survive, the first step is to not die. To not die, the most immediate concern is present circumstantial competence, for lack of a better phrase. The gene must have something to offer right now that is more advantageous than its competing alleles. That will secure immediate survival, but the interests of genes extend vastly beyond that initial persistence. To secure the future, it must continually adapt in such a manner that it consistently outranks its opponents. It must mould itself around its environmental niche, and stick with it while consistently generating new improvements (which may be emergent out of sexual reproduction, in which it will adapt to the new genetic configuration, ideally in a positive arrangement). In other words, it must remain relevant.

That is how anything that persists does and must work. Relevance, the optimal option (be it an atomic configuration, a gene, or an economy) under the given circumstances, informs stability. When the stability is continuous and functional, it persists. When it persists, it exists.

I don’t regard what I have written in this article to be particularly groundbreaking, for it is simply a continued development of sound logic, but I would like to make note of an interesting emergence that may have room for future exploration. As I outlined earlier concerning natural selection, genes have been evolving for billions of years in such a manner that relevance breeds continued persistence (not necessarily short-term dominance however, which may often be left to viruses and the like). They are the optimal gene under the circumstances. They have been generated, or manipulated, such that they continue to serve a useful and functional role. It has been defined and measured by the empirical tests of nature. In a very legitimate sense, one could argue that this is more real than anything else. It is this, even if lacking divinity, eternity, and certainty, that leads things to exist. We can never be certain, but what has been supposedly proven to exist seems to be the most real thing that we can consider. Over the course of our universe, what is real has been what is functional, stable and relevant.

However, from somewhere in this cold, practical process emerged consciousness, a gift that we humans possess. Consciousness brought about self-awareness, introspection, and, above all, a perceptual basis for existence and evolution. In a conscious being, relevance is no longer exclusively that which works under the circumstances, but that which is deliberately and upon introspection, forethought and reason deemed to be preferable. Consciousness has shed a new light on the universe. As stated earlier, the universe unconsciously builds itself around what is functional, stable and relevant. That is what stands to be real. But conscious deliberation adds a free and nondeterministic hand to what stands to be real. It measures what is relevant using two distinct units: perception and reality. What is real can now change on the basis of perception.