No comments about Signals and Systems (The Oxford Series in Electrical and Computer Engineering).

5 comments about The End of Certainty.

1. If you want a simple, elegant, responsible, well-informed book on the origin of the macroscopic arrow of time and on how time-revesibility at the microscopic level resolves many of the quantum paradoxes, read Physics Prof. Victor Stenger's "Timeless Reality". You will get much more out of it.



2. I did buy this book some time ago and then I was fascinated. I studied the basis of his theory, but unfortunately, Prigogine passed away recently, before I can discuss with he some topics in more detail.

   The greater part of the book is written in a natural style, but some sections are highly mathematical even for the majority of scientists! This mathematical presentation has a curious explaining. There are several version of Prigogine's theory, but the first versions had been "abandoned", and then Prigogine details the new approach: "Star-unitary theory for LPS outside of Hilbert space".

   An earlier reviewer said that the book provides a solution to three of the most important problems in science: (1) Time's arrow. (2) The measurement problem in QM. (3) The existence of freewill. Precisely, I am working in those and other questions, and I do not believe that claim was completely correct (and perhaps Prigogine believed the same, because in his last communication, said me "The questions that you ask are very difficult."). In my opinion, the novel theory is conflictive both in mathematical and physical details, but I consider that, at least, the aim of the School is correct one. Irreversibility and uncertainty are two fundamental features of our universe. I see that orthodox physics (including particle physics and the so-called String-M theory) is incorrect and/or inapplicable. I believe that, whereas other "popular" books (The Quark and The Jaguar, The Elegant Universe, etc.) should be "relics" in 21st century physics, Prigogine's book will be then a basic work.

   The contributions of Prigogine's physics to the understanding in other disciplines, as chemistry, are not clear. In fact, I believe that the impact of recent Prigogine's ideas into fundamental chemistry has been "insignificant", because his revolutionaries ideas in physics are an outcome of their previous chemical investigations (Nobel Prize for Chemistry). For example, in his complex spectral theory, energy is an imaginary quantity, and this is in direct conflict with standard quantum theory postulates. However, in theoretical chemistry, one always defines a transition state by means of an imaginary frequency. As said Prigogine in a recent Solvay conference, "all of Chemistry deals with irreversible processes". I cannot say the same of physics.

   The book is very good one, but I disagree in one point. When one writes a scientific paper for publication in a specialized journal (as Physical Review), one can write about everything. Referees and other scientist can either accept or reject your work in scientific grounds. When one writes a popular book for non-expertises, one must be the most "neutral" possible. If this is not possible, one must to "alert" to the reader. This book is not neutral and, in some restricted sense, shows several theories and ideas as been of broad acceptance or current use in science. Of course, this overemphasizes the scientific status of the so-called Brussels School and minimizes the importance of other interesting points of view. In my opinion, this is not a correct attitude. For example, the "diagrammatic" method developed by Brussels School in the 60's (and illustrated in the book) is broadly not used by scientific community. See, for example, "Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics" by Robert Zwanzig for a view in more standard formalisms. In addition, I also must say that some previous Prigogine's ideas in dissipative structures, kinetic potentials, etc. are not standard, and other, as the "universal" criterion of evolution (following production of entropy), was experimentally shown to be false. Of course, other contributions of called Brussels School are simply impressive, for example the extension of scattering theory of particle physics to more general situations of chemical kinetics. Effectively, you have read fine, orthodox S-matrix of "fundamental" physics can be derived as an idealized asymptotic version valid for typical accelerator experiments! I am sorry, but I must said that Chemistry is not applied QED.

   Conclusion: The book describes an excellent philosophical view in a "new" physics, and for this reason it may be a central piece on your collection. Nevertheless, I consider that the scientific way proposed is a little conflictive and some mathematics may be modified!




3. Reading this "popular science" book, written by one of the greatest contemporary chemical physicists, was both difficult and satisfying. To avoid a fit of sycophancy, let's just say that I wish I had it when taking my postgrad Statistical Mechanics class. The only negative thing I can cay about this book is that the discussion is somewhat eclectic; it often oscillates between almost trivial philosophy and very high-level, cutting-edge science. It is not clear what the reader is expected to know before starting on this book. That said, if you can work your way through it, you will likely come out with a new understanding of non-equilibrium statistical mechanics and the physics of complex systems.



4. by the late Nobel Laureate on the controversial issue of time's arrow. It's not clear he succeeded but his passion was never missing. He has consistently held in his books that nature is probabilistic even though his explanation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that entropy can only hold constant or increase in an isolated system, has evolved. (For instance in acceding to Frank Tipler that gravity breaks invariance.) Much of his motivation seems to have been in sorting out why Boltzman and Gibbs failed to satisfy the science community that their statistical physics explained the 2nd law, due to reversible classical equations and Poincare recurrences. However in order to make his probabilistic argument he may have created a loophole. He points to the Langevin equation as an irreversible equation with noise (friction) and he says Poincare should have connected nonintegrability with irreversibility and most dynamics are nonintegrable. However everyone agrees some (simple) systems are reversible (pendulums etc) so how can all of nature be stochastic? Maybe because the noise terms tend to but never go to zero? However in addressing the arrow of time he suggests gravity which is ignored in thermodynamics as are all interactions; but this explanation is also used by others in deterministic models. So it may never be provable who is right; but if his loophole is real I think there may be a simpler explanation.
   
   Statistical entropy in all of it's variations is an excellent inference tool but it is about an observer's measurements and not underlying properties of the system being measured (frequentist approaches come close but usually have to extrapolate). In this case Poincare recurrence maybe non-physical, a mere statistical fluctuation with no actuality. (Prigogine says it is false because he introduces new microscopic dynamics, I'm just saying it may not arise in reality but only through statistical assumptions which depend on observer uncertainty.) I agree with the explanation at the website secondlaw.com that the thermodynamic explanation of entropy is fundamental as it is a measure of energy diffusion, and not randomness or uncertainty as the tool of statistical entropy would imply. In this way the 2 approaches are not contradictory; the statistical is merely a measurement tool for observers while the thermodynamic is real dynamics requiring no observers (ice melts, water crystalizes etc long before man was around). The current argument in wikipedia that statistical entropy is considered more fundamental because the others can be derived from it is silly; there are many types of subjective entropy measures, the basic frequentist vs Bayesian approaches, there is volume entropy such as for measuring expanding gases, configurational entropy such as for crystals etc; however there is only one thermodynamic entropy, Clausius's dS = <>q/T (for reversible systems; calculations change of course with potential variables of volume, pressure and temperature). If anything this should be viewed as fundamental as it is a direct measurement of the physical movement of heat. One should not confuse information theory and measurement techniques with real underlying dynamics. When some authors say 'entropy is not a property of a system, it is a property of our description of the system' they are referring to statistical entropy measures and not real thermodynamics. As Prigogine says 'irreversability is not just in our minds', that it applies to nonintegral systems identified by Poincare but not the connection. The very same wikipedia current description, possibly by a different author, accedes the point: "The problem with linking thermodynamic entropy to information entropy is that in information entropy the entire body of thermodynamics which deals with the physical nature of entropy is missing...information entropy gives only part of the description of thermodynamic entropy. Some, authors, like Tom Schneider, argue for dropping the word entropy for the H function of information theory and using Shannon's other term 'uncertianty' instead."
   
   
   If Boltzman had accepted that his equation was not fundamental but an inference tool then most of the debates would likely not have arisen, including Prigogine's criticism of an excellent tool that did not deserve to be criticized on that basis. However what he has done is to show mathematically how irreversibility can apply at the microscopic level for nonintegral systems (in agreement with macroscopics) due to non-local persistent interactions but has to be measured statistically at the level of ensembles and not individual trajectories. This is quite a feat even if controversial. Nevertheless the standard entropy calculations apply for equilibrium systems and the arrow of time is still mysterious though possibly linked to gravity as he says. It would have been nice to see some discussion of entropy of non-equilibrium systems for which there is no universal agreement. For instance it is said that 'the rate of change of entropy with time for a nonequilibrium stochastic process is always positive.' [B.C. Bag; the following references are also available on the net with a simple author search.] This might suggest he already solved the problem and gravity is not required? But-
   
   R. Metzler et. al. say 'Prigogine introduced novel microscopic laws which are irreversible with time. One reason for this ongoing discussion is the absence of rigorous mathematical proofs of irreversible properties in the thermodynamic limit...ensemble averages do not give a basic explanation of irreversible properties, since they contain an average over infinitely many trajectories. Ergodic theory does not help either, since it needs time averages over infinitely many trajectories...In this model we introduce a model with deterministic time reversible dynamics which can be analysed in detail...The Poincare return time is known exactly...' However this takes us back to the usual complaints about statistical fluctuations. [Is there a real arrow of time if everything is eventually reversible?]
   
   Castagnino and Lombardi have developed an interesting approach to the question of the arrow of time. [Clearly Prigogine failed by his own admission and his gravity conjecture!] 'In fact time reversal invariant equations can have irreversible solutions. [e.g. the pendulum is time-reversal invariant...however the trajectories...are irreversible...]...The traditional local approach owes its origin to the attempts to reduce thermodynamics to statistical mechanics...[however] only by means of global considerations can all decaying processes be coordinated. This means that the global arrow of time plays the role of the background scenario where we can meaningfully speak of the temporal direction of irreversible processes, and this scenario cannot be built up by means of local theories that only describe phenomena confined in small regions of spacetime...the geometrical approach to the problem of the arrow of time has conceptual priority over the entropic approach, since the geometrical properties of the universe are more basic than its thermodynamic properties.'
   
   Obviously the debate continues. While Prigogine may not have solved the arrow of time, his work on correlations is important as these are assumed away in classical physics but they are critical to life!



5. This is one of the best books which I have ever read in my life.

5 comments about Nonlinear Systems (3rd Edition).

1. This is an excellent textbook, outdoing, AS SUCH, the books by Vidyasagar, Isidori, and Rugh, as well as both of Minorsky's related classics. It is well written, well balanced, making extensive use of a fairly sophisticated language (not too abstract but certainly far from archaic), and features a plethora of exercises of various difficulty levels. Appendix A, presenting detailed, careful proofs of 21 theorems and lemmas is a definite "must." This appendix alone is worth the (sour) price of the book, making it today's "text of choice" when it comes to teaching courses. (Students should be familiar with ALL of them!)

   The topics dealt with, while, for the most part, pretty standard, are appropriate for a first graduate course on nonlinear systems, as approached from the Control Engineering viewpoint. There's a bit of just about everything that's important in present-day studies of such systems: mathematical foundations, stability analysis, periodic solutions, averaging & pertubations (both regular and singular), feedback control & linearization, and Lyapunov-based design, including adaptive control. Even H-infinity is touched in passing!

   Unfortuantely, the famous conjectures by Aizerman and Kalman and Letov's contributions do not constitute a central interest in the book. Lur'e's problem, on the other hand, IS mentioned.

   The author provides a 195-title reference list and an effort to include recent texts is apparent. However, a few serious omissions do occur. For instance, Russian publications are nearly non-existing on said list, and Desoer's famous 1969 paper on the stability of slowly-varying systems is not mentioned explicitly. But it is not entirely accurate to say that Khalil's treatment of time-varying systems is centered around time-freezing techniques. He does, indeed, present one or two examples to that effect. But out of 734 pages, no less than 16 are dedicated to several aspects relating to stability of time-varying systems, most of which can be directly mapped back to Desoer's theorem.

   By and large, this book is -- and shall remain for some time to come -- the best text for introductory graduate courses in Nonlinear Systems.




2. A good textbook for nonlinear system design, I am using it for a graduate NL control design course. Gives a thorough treatment of Lyanpunov stability and applications, as well as NL design techniques. The text is on the mathematical side, a good companion to 'Applied Nonlinear Control' by Li and Slotine.



3. The third edition contains material about high gain observers and sliding modes which are welcome additions. The book also contains sections about backstepping and passivity techniques. As in the first edition the author's writing is clear and concise. It is a good complement to Vidyasagar's Nonlinear Systems book.



4. This book offers a deep explanation about the stability foundation regarding Lyapunov Theorem. It is strongly advisable this book for any researcher who is intending to follow this filed of work.



5. Used this for a Nonlinear Control Theory Class. It was a little short on Control Theory (didn't include much adaptive control etc) but has such good coverage of nonlinear stability theory that it is extremely applicable for a Control Theory class. Does a great job explaining complicated ideas, and does a spectacular job providing references for more information.
   
   This book won the IFAC Control Engineering Textbook Prize in 2002, but its greatness can more accurately be established by simply noting that it is used as THE nonlinear controls textbook by many engineering departments.

2 comments about The Tree of Life: A Phylogenetic Classification (Harvard University Press Reference Library).

1. This book is truly a work of art in layout, design and presentation of line drawings and scientific content. It is one of the best scientific presentations I have seen and anyone remotely interested in this subject needs to check this excellent reference.



2. "The Tree of Life" is a thorough modern phylogenetic classification of life on this planet. This book is great for anyone interested in how different organisms are really related, from single-celled organisms up to humans and our close relatives. Anyone who has ever thought it strange that we should group turtles, crocodilians and dinosaurs together as "reptiles", but exclude birds (and mammals), will likely be interested in this book. The book is comprehensive, detailed, and well illustrated, and remarkably well-priced.
   
   This book covers the whole range of life on Earth, though primates and other mammalian groups are given far more thorough treatment than bacteria and archaeans. Each section provides a description of the distinguishing features of the relevant group, with examples of some of the members, information on the fossil record, and plenty of illustrations.
   
   The main drawback with such a work is, of course, that the field is changing rapidly and it is close to impossible to ever be fully up-to-date. Another minor, but slightly annoying, problem is that a number of errors have crept into the English translation, so, for example, "Pliocene" appears as "Pilocene" in many places in the book.*
   
   Nonetheless, the scope of "The Tree of Life", the detailed description and the abundant illustrations make this an invaluable reference work for those interested in biological classification.
   
   *Note: I assume that these errors are absent from the original French text.

5 comments about Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos.

1. This mesmerizing historical overview of nonlinear science, full of seedy ideas and fascinating expositions (from heartbeat to weather forecast) is well worth reading. One of those "aha !" books that will broaden your understanding of the universe (and the rest), it is very "visual" and..well, a friend of mine said she considered it a "mental thriller" since it touches on the great old questions of determinism and predictability. As for "mathematics" in the title- don't be put off. The book is virtually mathless.



2. (1st edition '89) Stewart's book gives the reader as strong a flavor for the constructs of chaos as possible without formulas everywhere. The author makes great use of figures to depict ideas and even gives readers home-projects to test for themselves. Further reading is given (with difficulty levels indicated) for the brave-hearted. Unfortunately, the book is lacking as a reference due to it's vague table of contents and sparse index. But as compared to Mark Ward's "Beyond Chaos", Stewart gives the reader a deeper understanding of the subject matter. Overall good read.



3. Although chaos was a hype some years ago, it still is relevant to many branches of the physical and mathematical sciences. For non-mathematicians, like myself, it is quite difficult to get some good, solid, reliable information about what chaos theory is all about. Ian Stewart is that source of reliable information, and if you want to know what chaos is about, read this book first.
   
   Stewart's approach is down-to-earth, leaving all the mystical ideas about the interconnectedness of the universe, behind. However, that does not mean that his writing is dull in any way. On the contrary, one can feel Stewart's enthousiasm for the mathematical weirdness of chaotic systems on every page. And the informal language and many puns make it a delight to read this book.
   
   Stewart describes how chaotic behavior was discovered in the late 1800s but was forgotten for nearly a century. He describes how mathematical chaos relates to chaotic features of the empirical world such as the butterfly effect (quite a difficult subject, but Stewart does a magnificant job here). And he points to some of the ramification of chaos for our thinking about the universe (determinism and all that stuff).
   
   All in all - a book that will make you think about the world in a different way.



4. I read and thoroughly enjoyed the first edition and purchased the second for the three new chapters. This book is a fun romp through the subject matter, just mathematical enough to get the gist wthout getting bogged down. I read this book for the overview of the subject and am now going through the Strogatz textbook for the details.
   One thing to be aware of is that the original books published by Blackwell are preferable to the Penguin reprints. The Penguin books have *much* smaller text and figures.



5. This is a good book for those who are either starting to learn about chaos and nonlinear dynamics or those who would just like an overall view of what the subject is about without getting bogged down into heavy-duty math. This book has two distinct themes. One is to explain the mathematical concept of chaos, and why it is both natural and inevitable. The other is to ask the rather long question "Does the mathematical model of chaos exist in the real world, and does it help us understand some of the things that we see?".
   
   This book covers a variety of subjects that might at first seem unrelated - mathematical history, various chaotic models, weather patterns, applications - but by the end of the book everything comes together to give you a good overall view of the field. This second edition is mainly different from the first in the added three chapters on applications. These chapters cover prediction in chaotic systems, the control of chaotic systems, and then there is a speculative chapter that attempts to explain how the concept of chaos might lead to a new answer to Einstein's famous question which is also the title of this book.
   
   This book requires more imagination and an ability to visualize than a talent for mathematics, and it makes a good introduction to more technical books on the subject such as "Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos" by Strogatz. Of course, that book requires much more in the way of mathematical maturity. This book looks more at the forest, the Strogatz book looks more at the trees.

4 comments about The Systems View of the World: A Holistic Vision for Our Time (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and the Human Sciences).

1. 
   Systems thinking is more than another new field of scientific and philosophical research. It leads to a new world view, integrating the sciences of nature and man. It is a world view for our times, explaining some some of our most cherished successes and some of our most distressing problems, and showing ways to resume progress toward new achievements. Knowledge of systems thinking is a key to understand modern developments in areas such as physics, business management, ecology, politics, natural resources, etc.
   

   Ervin Laszlo is one of the most important contributors to the development of systems science and philosophy. With "The Systems View of the World" he achieved a remarkably accurate condensation, in a hundred clearly written and pleasantly readable pages, of the fundamental ideas of systems thinking.
   

   The book begins contrasting the systems view of the world, based on integration an understanding of relationships, with the atomistic view of the world, based on decomposition and understanding of parts. He proceeds presenting the concept of system, leading the reader through a series of distinctions and examples. It is interesting to remark that Laszlo does not present a definition of system, coherently with the idea that system is a basic, primitive concept.

   
   Laszlo follows with the explanation of the systems view of nature, summarized in four propositions, which are developed and exemplified:
   1. Natural systems are wholes with irreducible properties;
   2. Natural systems maintain themselves in a changing environment;
   3. Natural systems create themselves in response to self-creativity in other systems;
   4. Natural systems are coordinating interfaces in nature's holarchy.
   

   The book's final part deals wit the system's view of ourselves. To do this, Laszlo begins from our cosmic origins, proceeding to the appearance of matter, life, consciousness and finally culture. He emphasizes the importance of values and explains why even traditional values, in spite of their permanent character, must be reformulated to meet the requirements of our times. Laszlo shows how the systems view of the world has a place for freedom and differentiation in an integrated world. He finishes the book stressing the role of religion in human life and proposes that the systems view of the world may offer some openings for conciliation of science with the different religious traditions.




2. If you would like to learn about systems theory with minimal background knowledge, this is an excellent book! It shows how we are all inseperable parts of nature and that everything we do to everyone and everything else influences ourselves as well. It shows us how nature is organized into many levels of whole units. It eloquently shows how we are all parts of larger whole units made of smaller whole units. It is just a wonderful book that reminds us of our connection with the rest of the universe. If you are interested in systems theory, I also recommend another super-fascinating book called "The Ever-Transcending Spirit" by Toru Sato that discusses this in relation to human consciousness. It is also one of my favorites! I am sure you will feel that these books are well worth the money.



3. Ervin Laszlo, one of the greatest minds contributing to systemic theory, has done an excellent job of introducing this construct which takes one "outside the box!" Opening the door to bring heightened awareness of Self and the universe, Laszlo presents systemic and holistic thinking in invitng simplicity, while facilitating the exploration of the same. The world which Laszlo opens to the reader is a world that can inspire visionary thinking, leading us to a more peaceful, understanding existence. I strongly recommend anyone to follow Laszlo into a world of holism, growth and new paths to a more peaceful world!



4. I enjoyed reading this book which elaborates on systems theory and natural systems. I only wish the politics could be left out. I am interested in the science not the liberal slant characteristic of academia.

2 comments about Chaos: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions).

1. I really struggled in trying to rate this book, as I really want to be fair and equitable in all my reviews. Perhaps it is a very good book and I have "short-changed" it, but I cannot really say because, after reading it, I feel just about as confused and bewildered regarding mathematical chaos as I did before I launched into it. Well, I do not suppose that reading it "hurt" me! But, in my humble opinion, this condensed, compressed "cutting edge" stuff is not for "beginners"!
   
   It seems like I would have a "fighting chance" to readily comprehend the content of this little book, given that I am what many people would call a "well-read" and intelligent person (and I even have a graduate degree with a "minor" in multivariate statistics from a respected university). But no way! I was confused early on in trying to decipher this book on my own. I really needed a patient teacher to hold my hand. Maybe I am basically dense, stupid, below average in IQ, and/or just getting old -- who knows? But, while I endeavored to read this "very short introduction", I found myself thinking that, at least for the average person, it may be possible, but not probable, that they will grasp much of the content beyond perhaps a few vague intuitive notions. Otherwise, I learned a few new impressive words, what a "vole" is, a little about "Olbers' paradox", and that Edgar Allan Poe was seriously interested in cosmology (for example, see his essay entitled, "Eureka").



2. A very readable introduction for anyone interested in nonlinear dynamics, time series, weather forecasting or climate modelling.
   
   There are very few concise introductions to chaos and its applications, so this one is well worth reading.

5 comments about The Social Atom: Why the Rich Get Richer, Cheaters Get Caught, and Your Neighbor Usually Looks Like You.

1. It seems like yesterday that I picked up a book that would shape the way that I would look at the social world forever. That book was the "Sociological Imagination" by C. Wright Mills. In that particular book, Mills attacked the status quo of social theorists who created "grand theories" without understanding the way that social interactions actually occurred. From the moment that I finished his book as I worked on my masters degree I had scrutinized every attempt that another theorist has made at explaining the world, carefully watching those who would try and imprint their own values into wayward theories which sound good to some people, but fail miserably to contain the truth.
   
   Then along comes Mark Buchanan who writes this amazing book "The Social Atom." He presents a rather intriguing argument that we could understand the world far better if we examine patterns more closely. Initially I was skeptical that a physicist could apply his education into social theory, but Buchanan's comments about feedback were enough to open my eyes to the genius of his book.
   
   I firmly believe that anyone who is involved in the social sciences should give this book a thorough reading. I think it has the potential to help us understand our world and maybe help us make it a better place.



2. "The Social Atom" presents some basic ideas from the field of agent-based behavioral modeling, with examples and applications like stock market pricing, residential segregation, and inequality of personal income. The approach has been around for a while (it got started in the 70s), but now that more work is being done it is a good time for a popular book on the subject.
   
   The strong points of this book are: 1) clear writing for non-scientists, and 2) interesting examples like those mentioned above. However, the book is very simplified, non-quantitative, and lacking in details. Science writing for the popular market is always a trade-off between "too hard" and "too easy," but many readers will want and expect more information than this book provides.
   
   That said, for readers without a science background, this book would be an interesting and understandable introduction to the agent-based way of thinking.



3. In this book Buchanan makes the astute observation that humans are much like the atoms that physicists study. His assumptions are accurate when put in terms that atoms, like people, are complex and yet simple structures that when left on their own behave in certain, predictable ways. The author points out that if you join two or more atoms together something completely different can emerge, yet there are still patterns in their behavior that can be predicted. He suggests that if our goal is to be able to predict human behavior; then it is these observable and researched "social atom" patterns that we need to study (p.10).
   Buchanan proposes that the social sciences have failed to enlighten us on the subject of human behavior by erroneously looking too closely at the individual instead of looking at the patterns of behavior, given a societies rules and values (p.17). He also suggests that the economists perspective of "self interest" is even more outdated; using theories and rules of behavior that do not exist in reality, but only in economists minds and classrooms (p.17-18). His thought is that we can uncover the patterns that influence human behavior and find a balance for predictability that has as of yet, alluded us.
   Buchanan sums all of his theories and evidence together to basically prove two points;
   1. That human behavior can be studied from a scientific, empirically researched, position. 2. That we can indeed predict human behavior; and therefore the economy.
   Overall The Social Atom is an intelligent and witty book, written by an intelligent and witty man. Buchanan takes a fairly dry and boring subject and makes it more fun to look at. He does not write in the scholarly tone of a physicist; he uses everyday language that can be understood by anyone willing to venture into the topic of predicting human behavior.
   The research he uses to support his hypothesis is current and entertaining to read, though a bit redundant by the end of the book. I do not find that his ideas for predicting human behavior as a hard science are new, though his reflections seem to put it into a well thought out plan of action. He is not the first person to use the term "social atom," nor do social scientists study one person and pass those conclusions onto the rest of humanity. In their defense, social scientists have been studying patterns in behavior for years.
   The book can be read by the multitudes and perhaps give them humorous insight into the field of economics and social science and how these "experts" on behaviorism and prediction think. His feeling that human behavioral patterns can be studied as a hard science, as much as patterns in physics can be, is enlightening... but then I never thought it couldn't be.



4. I bought this largely on the strength of the jacket blurb by Mike Davis, which began "Seldom has a book so infuriated me yet kept me tightly gripped to each page." As it turned out, I shared his fury at the author's arrogance, overwriting, meandering, and frequent self-indulgent screeds. As it also turned out, I was not gripped by the book; on the contrary. Though there are certainly nuggets of insight, the book is poorly written and poorly argued. Other reviewers have commented on the free use of straw man arguments and gratuitous digs and on the incoherence of style; I won't repeat their criticisms, though I certainly mean to second them. I barely recognized familiar economic views through the filter of the author's scorn, and found his jejeune comments about post-modernism appalling: no, one does not have to BE a sympathizer with it, but one DOES need to offer a nuanced and sympathetic view of the theoretical perspective one intends to diss. And it is one thing to claim to have found problems with 'rational man' presumptions, and thus to want to emphasize other factors bearing on decisions--as Kahneman so brilliantly does--and quite another to claim that one has identified the SOURCE of these other things...and still another to claim (without argument) that the source is to be found in evolution, as it is understood by the evolutionary psychologists. The wholesale embrace of evolutionary psychology was not defended, nor does the author seem to have any awareness that there are powerful criticisms of both the methodology and substance of evolutionary psychology notably those that claim that it alternates between offering utterly empty hypotheses and utterly ungrounded ones. The weakness of the writing, the weakness of the argument, and the arrogance of the author overshadowed the few, small, good things in the book. As several other reviewers have pointed out, one can find those good things in other places, with clearer presentations and more cogent argumentation.



5. As an avid reader of the late, great Isaac Asimov's fabulous "Foundation" novels in my miss-spent youth, I was thrilled to read this book. I see it as the first faint glimmering of the possibility of developing the kind of social science which Asimov described in his novels. Buchanan does a great job at exposing the failings of current economic orthodoxy and points to an entirely compelling way forward toward a future of evidence based social policy making -- the current lack of which seems to be pushing us rather strongly in the direction of a new Dark Ages.

5 comments about Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos.

1. The scope of complexity science is vast, encompassing many disciplines. This book focuses on how the new idea of complexity relates to biology by discussing the idea with many leading biologists of the day. Other reviewers were put off by the book's lack of definition of what complexity is, and the lack of resolution as to what terms such as "edge of chaos" mean. But that is exactly the point. These terms do not have clear definition today. Complexity is a very immature field, frequently pursued at the visceral level. It is hard to define what it *is*, but frequently easy to identify it where it exists. I can understand the other reviewers' concerns with the lack of definition, and can only suggest that because of the narrower focus (biology), this is an appropriate second book on complexity.

   As a second book, narrowly focused on the question of complexity in biology, it is outstanding. Specifically, the question is one of how self-organization (complexity) relates to evolution and what this means for natural selection. Complexity is frequently talked up as the unifier of the sciences. Lewin takes a balanced approach, taking the time to talk to complexity theorists and understand their ideas, then talking to mainstream biologists to see how the ideas relate. His conclusion shows no inherent bias. Where other books on complexity show extreme (perhaps undue) enthusiasm, Roger Lewin's concusion is decidedly "wait and see". I found his insights to be on target and relevant.

   I mentioned that this is a good second book. For an introduction to complexity, read John Holland's "Hidden Order". For a history of the Santa Fe Institute and some of the personalities there, read Mitchell Waldrop's "Complexity". Either or both of these would serve as an adequate introduction to this book.




2. I am not a scientist. I am, however, interested in a wide variety of subjects and fascinated by complexity. I am not referring now to the book, or the subject but the expression in the real world of all that there is to know and understand. How can anyone live and not recognise at the deepest levels of their understanding that everything that exists does so in dependence on other things that exist and that this interdependence, because of the number of dynamic variables, cannot be described otherwise than a complex system. It is at this point that anyone who has read the book or who is a part of this book will protest that I have missed the point. I have not. This book isn't about a vague subjective comprehension of all things being related. It is much more scientific than that. I have started off this way because I am aware that in the hustle of everyday life-the place where most readers of books reside-the subject of the science of complexity is beyond even the periphery of what might occur to them as a topic to take an interest in, let alone find relevant. Having a general, non-expert appreciation for the immense complexity of which we are a part is an appropriate mindset to bring to any reading of the subject. The book is deserving of a wider appeal than for just new wave idea groupies.

   I find Lewin strikes the right balance with his reader presenting difficult concepts with elegant clarity yet providing enough detail to challenge the reader. To make the material too simple would leave the concepts incoherent-to provide too much would leave the reader behind. He also presents a balanced view of the subject. There are detractors in the scientific community. They are heard from. Lewin develops various concepts directly related to complexity rather cleverly. We are given a piece of concept that is added onto later in a different context providing us with a kaleidoscopic way of thinking of the material. It is all connected but our focus shifts slightly giving us a new view of the subject. In the beginning there were Boolean Networks. Other concepts follow: edge of chaos; complex adaptive systems; emergence. If anyone has ever wondered even in passing why is it that discrete bits of biota or data that do not amount to much in themselves can produce not only something more complex when put together but something that is more than the sum of its parts then Complexity is of interest to you.

   This book doesn't have to be the final authority or explain it all to be a very good read. And, in reference to other reviews, novel new ways of approaching scientific inquiry don't come from just anyone. Personalities matter. Putting the subject of complexity in the context of those who have been pursuing its secrets is not only acceptable but adds to our understanding. The implications for the opening up of new ways of seeing what we've heretofore been looking at `through a glass darkly' are incredible. I can see why some of the leading scientists might find the subject worth their time and energy. So many things we wish to fix about how we operate within the system that supports us have proved intransigent to change. Perhaps this is because up to now we have been hampered by a too narrow view of what dynamics are relevant to a particular line of inquiry.

   Lewin has presented complexity as a good mystery novel. It is a non-fiction mystery novel the ending of which has yet to be written.




3. Roger Lewin engagingly writes of his discussions with leaders in the field of complexity, the study of non-linear, dynamical systems in the life sciences. Studies in 'chaos' theory and related fields like cellular automata have led to new formulations of self-organization and non-vitalistic emergence in living systems. Although still considered a fringe element by some of their colleagues, people like Stuart Kauffman, Chris Langton, Norman Packard and others are exploring models of "...common dynamical patterns in the realms of physics, biology, and society..." (193) which may radically change our understandings of evolution and consciousness. A cheering trend toward non-aristotelian directions.



4. Before I read this book I had no idea what Complexity theory was. I picked up a sentence or two in another book about it, and decided to investigate. While Roger doesn't really state what complexity *is*, it is suffice that he tells you what it's all about.
   
   I liked that the book was written as a journey into complexity, rather than throwing data at you. It flowed much more easily than anticipated, so much so I'd recommend it to my less academic friends.
   
   If you're looking for a good introduction to complexity - especially in the field of biology, then pick up nothing other than this book. If you're looking for a more advanced insight into the science, I'd suggest you find something else. Although a magnificent intro, it's not in-depth enough for you to start adapting the idea to your field in my opinion.



5. This was a very intriguing book. The author's method of discussing the topic is by interviewing the various individuals involved in complexity research. It is sometimes a little difficult to follow because it's difficult to decide who is doing the questioning and who the answering, but once past that, the reader will find that the author follows a very coherent outline of the topic.
   
   In general Lewin starts with the inception of the concept by its various originators and the way that they have developed methods (largely computerized programs) to test their hypotheses. He also discusses the difficulty which these individuals met in trying to promote their ideas of complexity, chaos, and self-organizing criticality to the various academic departments to which they were attached. The author interviews a number of the best known scientists for their impressions of the output of the research into complexity. Some meet it with great skepticism while others, though cautious, seem to think that complexity theory has a great deal to say about dynamic complex systems.
   
   Those of you unfamiliar with complexity but have read something on chaos theory or self-organizing criticality (particularly Per Bok's how nature works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality (Copernicus)) will realize that this is simply another component of the dynamic system, another way of putting mathematics and computer generated programs to use in understanding things like evolution of species and ecosystems, of financial, business, and economic systems, and natural physical phenomena, even historic events (such as the abandonment of the Chaco Canyon Pueblo system.
   
   I found especially interesting the appendices, particularly that dealing with global economics and business. It was interesting to see what the predictions were and what the author and his sources thought businesses should do to make their particular market share more stable in a world economy that is forever changing not only within a specific region or a specific business type but within an entire suite of interacting businesses world wide.
   
   Very worthwhile reading.

5 comments about Symmetry and the Beautiful Universe.

1. 
   Most textbooks describe the conservation laws one at a time. Students learn them as a list of topics: Conservation of this, conservation of that. Pass the test. Forget about it. Yawn. This is why most people say they hate physics.
   
   This book takes an important step in changing the way we think about physics, particularly the conservation laws. The conservation laws are much deeper, as explained by Noether's Theorem. They aren't separate topics at all. They are part of one important concept: symmetry. Now we see that there is a connection between conctrete concepts, such as conservation of momentum, and some of the theories in particle physics. Now we have reason to talk about modern physics in a course on classical mechanics.
   
   Hopefully this book will inspire enough people that these ideas will show up in the classroom more. I will certainly incorporate these ideas in the physics classes I teach. In addition, I found that Emmy Noether's struggles are inspiring to many students, and her story provides an appropriate way to discuss something other than physics in a physics class.



2. Somehow in college (66-70) I missed the importance on symetry in physics. I majored in math, and when I learned that a fellow math student (Frank Wilczek) won the Nobel in Physics based on his math work, I started trying to figure out what I had missed. Somehow the importance of group theory (while clear in math) was not being taught in undergraduate physics even at Chicago. I have read quite a bit, and found this book to be very enlightening. They never get around to proving (or ever really explaining) Noether's theorem, but this book is the best of a very large lot.



3. The authors' essential premise is that the physical world is comprised of abstract forms that correspond to symmetrical principles. Beauty in the natural world is a mathematically precise formula. The sub-atomic world and the planetary bodies are part of the same numerical balancing act, which was recognized by Pythagoras and the Greek geometrists. Although this is hardly an original concept, the theme is well presented and expertly argued.



4. After having read Leon Lederman's previous book, The God Particle, I found this book largely disappointing, but it did have a few very strong points. One of these was his discussion about Emmy Noether, a mathematician who made huge contributions to abstract algebra and theoretical physics. He shows a great deal of respect, even awe, for this woman's accomplishments and this is where his writing is at its best; when he gets emotional over a subject. He also railed against in the inequality facing women in physics. His writing was so compelling that I would be interested in reading a biography of Noether. Importantly, Lederman also shows that not only is the natural world beautiful, it loses none of its mystique when studied in intricate detail and in the smallest possible detail. Lederman's discussion of quantum mechanics, including the uncertainty principal is the best I've read and he uses plain language and examples to explain it. One thing that Lederman did particularly well was explain why old theories collapse. The major downside of this book was that, except for the examples above, the physics and math were largely incomprehensible to the untrained reader such as myself and this really diminished my enjoyment of the book. Thus I cannot recommend this book to the casual reader, but I still strongly recommend The God Particle.



5. This book has too many ambitious goals. On the one hand, it strives to elucidate the pervasiveness of principles of symmetry in the universe from the gravity of the cosmos all the way down to the microscopic length scales of particles. In this regard, it does a decent job (and devotes many more pages to) explaining the scientific revolutions wrought by Copernicus, Galileo & Newton all the way to the 19th century of Maxwell and even the strangeness of Quantum Mechanics in the 20th. However, it utterly fails when describing particle physics, oddly enough since one of the authors (Lederman) won an Nobel Prize for his work on neutrinos. Chapter 12 of the book is a hasty, ill-explained, and rather unsatisfactory introduction to particle physics with an inundation of Feynman diagrams, sub-atomic particles (quarks, leptons, gluons) and their interactions. For a book that adopted a good pace early on taking pains to explain things with clarity, the last chapter does not do it justice. Another aim of the book is to promote the role of women in science, particularly by highlighting the work & life of Emmy Noether, a brief mention of Marie Curie and using the 'she' pronoun throughout. In both regards, it falls short and there are plenty of other books that do it better.