TED Conversations

Colin MacAskill

CSSDP

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is there a correlation between David Christian's big history and Terence McKenna's novelty theory?

When I watched David's talk it reminded me of this video I saw a while ago on Mckenna's novelty theory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr4JgSM1POw

I find the two theories pretty much share the same framework, although there's obviously a few pretty profound differences if you've looked into novelty theory at all.

Related Talks:
0
Share:
progress indicator

  • Alistaire Huggins

    • 0
    May 25 2011: From the talk I noticed how at each stage the forces were connecting pieces of matter to form new more complex objects. This was evident through the entire history of the universe and only increased with the advent of life. The early universe could only connect matter physically, between electrons and quarks. They would be pushed and pulled by the forces enough that eventually the right circumstances arose to form a hydrogen atom. This process happened very slowly until clumps of hydrogen atoms grew large enough so that fusion could take place. It was at this moment that matter could interact chemically. In the heart of stars elements would grow more complex, this lead to the formation of planets and asteroids. On these lumps of rock pools of chemicals would be swirled, heated and pressed together in enough combinations that eventually the first signs of life began to arise. Here matter was being connected on a biological level. These life forms evolved into more and more complex beings and with each new species came an increase of entropy. Lifeforms started to develop a means of communicating. Whether it be a grunt or cry for help, to let others know that they were in danger. This is what turned into human language that we know today. However ours differs, we can pass down ideas and knowledge to the next generation which they can use to expand upon rather than having to learn it through experience.

    At each stage in the history of the universe one thing kept constant. The amount of complexity always increased. This seems to be the natural tendency of the universe, from the increase in entropy the probability of complexity also seems to rise.
    So how do you make something more complex? First we must imagine that all interaction is an exchange of information. If atoms knock together the amount of energy exchanged between them is a physical transfer

    • Colin MacAskill

      • 0
      May 25 2011: Yeah that's what I understood of David' talk as well, it's a really ineresting way of looking at the history of the universe. This is what Mckenna maintained as well, and he observed like Dave that each stage of complexity evolves at a quicker rate than the stage preceeding it. For example, after the big bang took place it took hundreds of thousands of years for the universe to cool and to begin forming the hydrogen bond - an extremely long time to make a relatively small jump in complexity. Just looking at the 20th century, when there was merely 60 years between the time we invented the first aircraft and the time we landed on the moon, I think it's safe to say that the universe seems to be bulding on complexity at an exponential rate. This suggests that there will eventually be a point where ever-incresing complexity will hit its asymptote, and Mckenna suggested it would be in 2012. I've always found this a little hard to believe, but who knows? There's been a lot of transhumanists over the past few decades proposing humanity will soon hit the technological singularity, perhaps there's a correlation there.
  • thumb

    Tim blackburn 30+

    • 0
    May 23 2011: gotta love McKenna
Showing all 3 comments