Ilya Prigogine

interview

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Prigogine
• determinism
• time
• nobel
• irreversibility
• science
• philosophy

[charlesfrith]

Thank you for taking the time to post this.

[sgtmcwallace]

this is wonderful

[lmsor1]

Prigogines points out that there arises conditions in nature that introduces irreversible time on the microscopic level, which leads to an ever increasing complexity. That such a theory is a concoction, hardly. The Nobel comity in Stockholm certainly did not think so, since they awarded him the the Nobel price in chemistry in 1977.

[jceepf]

@lmsor1 It is not difficult for scientists to accept the irreversible nature of time. Thermodynamics and statistical dynamics assume de facto the existence of irreversible processes and thus give an arrow to time.

What makes Prygogine controversial is his attempts to concoct theories in which time appears in an irreversible way at the microscopic level. It is not the generally accepted reason for thermodynamic irreversibility.

[antizac]

@mujaku well he was a surrealist after all ;)

[sammygebre]

Science and religion should be married to each, not at opposition with each other.

can they reconcile themselves?

Only time (no pun intended) can tell!

[FeelOfFriction]

Grassroots science ftw.

[lmsor1]

Why is it so difficult for scientists to accept irreversible time? That nature is reversible on a fundamental level, yes. But in nature we find conditions that introduces evolution and a directionality of time. Prigogine has been instrumental in pointing that out. I also find his views on art relevant, and even more so, visit any museum and say hello to irreversible time

[mujaku]

"We should destroy laboratories because laboratories are giving us a false idea of men and of their existence" ~ André Breton

[jceepf]

The comments on this page are discouraging.... As a scientist who had the pleasure to meet Prof. Prigogine in Japan prior to his death, I do not tie his philosophical ideas with his scientific ones.

By all accounts, he is wrong scientifically. In fact he is border krackpot with all due respect.

But that does not mean that his ideas about the world are all crap. Religion, to name one thing, is not derivable from science....