prigogine - science, reason and passion (1996)

8/8/2019 Prigogine - Science, Reason and Passion (1996)

1/5

Science, Reason and PassionAuthor(s): Ilya PrigogineSource: Leonardo, Vol. 29, No. 1 (1996), pp. 39-42Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1576276Accessed: 26/01/2010 10:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Leonardo.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1576276?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1576276?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/5

SPECIAL SECTION

Science, R e a s o n a n d P a s s i o n

Ilya Prigogine

7 he role played by passion and, more generally,irrational elements in processing knowledge is a subject of

major interest, and one so immense that I can hope only toscratch the surface in discussing some of the aspects withwhich I am most familiar.

At first blush, we seem to be dealing here with a paradox.Isn't science by definition beyond passion, beyond even the

pressing needs of society? This is what Einstein thought-hehoped scientists could getjobs as lighthouse-keepers. One canhardly help wondering how creative these lighthouse-keeperswould be in the long run: I fear that after a few years, theywould sink into solipsism and pointless wrangling.

Science is the expression of a culture. Its boundaries arehard to define. In the nineteenth century, Faraday preferredto be known as a "natural philosopher" rather than a "scien-tist." Indeed, the word "science" was not used in its presentmeaning until the seventeenth century. At any rate, it refersto a dialogue with nature. But nature is not a given; it impliesa construction in which we take part. I have always iked whatHeisenberg reports Niels Bohr said during a visit to KronbergCastle in Denmark:

Isn't t odd how this castle seems completely different when wethink of it as the place where Hamlet lived? As scientists, webelieve a castle is made of stones, and we admire the way thearchitect assembled them. The walls, the verdigris roof, thechurch beams-these make up the castle. Nothing shouldchange ust because Hamlet ived here, yet that changes every-thing. Suddenly he walls and the ramparts peak a totally dif-ferent language. Still all we really know about Hamlet is thathis name appears n a thirteenth-century hronicle. But every-body knows he questions Shakespeare had him ask, and thehuman depth they reveal; he too had to have a place in theworld, here in Kronberg....

How can one fail to recognize in Bohr's meditations herethe leitmotif of his life as a scientist: the inseparability of thequestion of reality and the riddle of human existence? Whatis the castle of Kronberg, independent of the questions we putto it? The stones can speak to us of their molecules, the geo-logical strata they were quarried from, perhaps of the extinct

species they contain in fossil form, of the cultural influencesthat worked on the architect, or the questions that pursuedHamlet to his death. None of these matters are arbitrary, nordo they permit us to sidestep reference to Hamlet, whose pres-ence here gives them meaning. Bohr's reflections very clearlyshow his assumption that the questions of the reality of natureand of human existence are inseparable. How can one be in-different to problems that involve our existence? How can onenot see them simultaneously with the eye of reason and theeye of passion?

People often wonder why science was born in Western Eu-rope instead of China, a country that contributed so much tothe development of our experimental discoveries. This is the

ABSTRACT

The cultural tmosphere hapresided tthe origin fclassicalWestern cience s briefly is-cussed. One f the most harac-teristic eatures fWestern ci-ence s the ormulation f aws fnature, hichead o a determinitic description nwhich uture nd___J ----.LI- . ....- _ I^1 ........

question Joseph Needham posed pas play e same role nowever,so forcefullye h these haracteristics, speciallyso forcefully. The sixteenth- and time eversibility,ontradict veryseventeenth-century founders of thingwesee around s.Every-Western science must surely have where e see the arrow ftime.had unsurpassed enthusiasm and The ecent evelopments nnon-

. architt equilibriumhysics nd n he dy-faith. The Florentine architect namics f unstable ystems eadand humanist Leon Battista to a new oncept f aws f na-Alberti claimed that "Men can do ture o more ssociated ith ceall things, if they will." This motto titudes" s with probabilities."applies to the great men of the

Thisformulationncludes hear-Renaissance:eonardo, er row f time nd describes nRenaissance: Leonardo, Kepler, open, evolutionary niverse, ver-

Galileo, Bacon. The very titles of coming heCartesian ualityhatKepler's major works show how puts Humans utside ature.completely they are the expres-sion of a magical view of the _world: The Cosmic Mystery, CelestialPhysics, The Harmonies of the World. Mystery, physics, har-mony-what an odd trio for one of the great founders ofmodern science. How can men do "all things," as Alberti hasit? Francis Bacon has the answer: men can do all things pro-vided they obey the laws of nature. But obeying the laws ofnature implies knowing them. During the Renaissance andlong after, the ideas of omniscience and omnipotence wereclosely linked, as they still are in the minds of a great manyscientists and non-scientists.

Only very recently, with the newsciences of instability and chaos, has this connection beencalled into question. The emotional element was quite evi-dent during that formative period of Western science, butsince the end of the eighteenth century, the emphasis hasbeen on reason, on logical necessity. Kant doubted that therewas any such thing as scientific creativity. The laws of naturehad been deciphered once and for all by Newton; all that re-mained was to apply them to an ever wider range of phenom-ena. Today we know that this triumph of classical science wasephemeral-our contemporary view of time, space and mat-ter has little in common with Newton's.

Yet the idea of a "limited" creativity persists. Thomas Kuhn,in his famous book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, istin-

guishes between two different states in the activities of scien-tific communities: normalperiods and the "anomalous" periodshe associated with paradigm changes. New paradigms comeforth only when contradictions appear and force scientists torevise their hypotheses, and only then are emotions triggered.

Ilya Prigogine (educator), Campus Plaine ULB, CP. 231, Bd. du Triumphe, B-1050 Brus-sels, Belgium.

This paper was presented at the International Workshop on Art and Science, which wasorganized by the World Academy of Art and Science and presented by Ente Nazionale diEnergie Alternative (ENEA) in cooperation with the United Nations Educational, Scien-tific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the European Economic Community(ECC), in Vinci, Italy, 11-13 December 1992. The proceedings of the conference, includ-ing this article, were published in Art and Science: Studiesfrom he World Academy f Art andScience, pecial issue of World utures: TheJournal of General Evolution 40 Nos. 1-3 (1994).

LEONARDO, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 39-42, 1996 391996 World Futures


3/5

There are certainly examples that bearout Kuhn's thesis: one is the discovery ofPlanck's constant at the beginning of this

century. But I think that on the whole,scientific creativity s far from being lim-ited to paradigm shifts in Kuhn's sense.No contradictions appeared in physicswhen Boltzmann inserted the arrow oftime into the structure of physics, orwhen Mach sought to rethink the limitsof mechanics by questioning the prin-ciple of inertia. And what aboutEinstein's relativity (to which we shall re-turn)? Was it not an attempt to realize a

grandiose dream-that of putting all of

physics in geometric terms-that harksback to both the Platonic and Cartesiantraditions?

I mentioned the impact of Newton's

synthesis: I believe it was n itself a curious

amalgam of reason and passion. Themost important part of Newton's synthe-sis was his enunciation of a law of nature.This

altogether original conceptis

pecu-liar to the Western scientific view.Newton's principle links forces with accel-eration. This principle-verified a thou-sand times over, and the basis for all fur-ther extensions (quantum or relativistic

mechanics)-has two essential character-istics: it is deterministic, and it is revers-ible in time. Being deterministic meansthat if we know a material body's initialconditions, we can calculate its positionat any moment in the future or in the

past. Being reversible means that futureand past play the same role. However,

these characteristics-especially time-reversibility-seem to contradict outrighteverything we see around us. Whether atthe level of our own experience, or in the

phenomena around us-in chemistry,geology or biology-past and future playdifferent roles. Everywhere we see the ar-row of time; how could it have issuedfrom non-time, from a fundamental lawthat ignores time? This is a subject thathas interested me throughout my scien-tific career. In view of this radical nega-tion of time, it seems to me that the par-ticular position of dynamics cannot be

understood without appealing to emo-tional elements. In a recently publishedbook, Isabelle Stengers and I wrote,

Perhaps we need to start by emphasiz-ing the almost nconceivable haracterof dynamic eversibility. he question oftime-of what ts flow preserves, reatesand destroys-has always been at thecentre of human concerns. Muchspeculation has called the idea of nov-elty into question and affirmed he in-exorable inkage between cause and ef-fect. Many forms of mystic teachinghave denied the reality of this changing

and uncertain world, and defined anideal existence permitting scape fromlife's afflictions. And we know how im-portant the idea of cyclic time was inantiquity. But, like the rhythm of theseasons or the generations of man, thiseternal return to the point of origin isitself marked by the arrow of time. Nospeculation, no teaching has ever af-firmed an equivalence between what sdone and what is undone, between aplant that sprouts, lowers and dies, and

a plant that resuscitates, rows youngerand returns o its original eed; betweena man who grows older and learns, andone who becomes a child, then an em-bryo, then a cell.

Yet Newtonian dynamics-the theorythat became identified with the triumphof science-implied this radical negationof time right from the outset. I think wecan find the roots of this negation in the

theological conceptions of Newton's day.Leibniz, for one, held that God knows nodistinction among past, present and fu-ture. "A

sufficientlynformed

person,"he

wrote, echoing Saint Thomas, "could at

any given time predict the whole future."(It is worth noting that Leibniz lived ahundred years before Laplace.) Since forGod there is no such thing as time, thereshould not be for the well-informed sci-entist either. Thus the negation of timebecame part of the scientist's credo. Even

today, most scientists share this opinion;at any rate, it is the point of view ex-

pressed in the works of Feynman, Hawk-

ing and David Ruelle: fundamental laws

ignore the arrow of time. Phenomenol-

ogy rejects the arrow of time in the sameway. But what is a science that casts life,and we who create this science, into phe-nomenology?

How can we accept, as Einstein did,both the idea that determinism reigns ab-solute and the idea that the creation of

theory is due to the free play of the hu-man mind? I think this is an example ofan emotional attitude that clearly marksthe limits of reason. I have always beenfascinated by this paradox of time, and Iwould like to say something about it now.

Let us go back to the nineteenth cen-

tury, in particular the years followingDarwin's publication of The Origin of Spe-cies (1859). This work introduced intothe sciences a new paradigm based onthe idea of evolution. Darwin not onlysought to demonstrate the fact of evolu-tion, but also suggested what the under-

lying mechanism, based on fluctuationsand amplification, might be.

Six years later, Clausius's enunciationof the Second Law of Thermodynamicscame about, in a way, as physics' answerto biology. The Second Law classifies

physical phenomena as either reversibleor irreversible in time; the latter pro-duces entropy. Hence Clausius's cel-ebrated principle: entropy in the Uni-verse is increasing. (In the thought ofthat day, the Universe was the isolated

system par excellence.)Few physicists or mathematicians took

Clausius's law seriously. Boltzmann wasan exception. For him, the nineteenth

century was the century of Darwin, andthe notion of evolution was an essentialelement in the description of nature. Hetried to go further and give a dynamicinterpretation of the increase of en-

tropy. I shall not go into the details, be-cause the examples Boltzmann studied,from the kinetic theory of gases, are inall the textbooks.

Like Darwin, Boltzmann thought that

irreversibility occurs at the level of popu-lations. Collisions between moleculeslead a large system, such as a gas, to astate of

equilibrium.But the

publicationof Boltzmann's findings triggered a cri-sis. Did it not run counter to logic to tryto infer the irreversibility of dynamiclaws which, as Newton had shown, are re-versible in time? The great mathemati-cian Henri Poincare had very harshwords to say about this: he thoughtBoltzmann's effort was self-contradictoryright from the start. This negative judg-ment should have provoked a crisis in

physics, since it called into question the

very basis of our thinking. What does itmean to think if there is no flow of time?

And do we not know today that the brainis actually a time-oriented organ? Thefuture, our plans for tomorrow, are pro-cessed in a different part of the brainthan the one that stores our memories.

Oddly enough, Boltzmann's defeat wasconsidered a triumph. A triumph of

nontemporal vision. Did Einstein not re-

peatedly say, "Time [as irreversibility] isan illusion"?

This brings us to the personality ofEinstein, who I believe illustrates betterthan anyone else the conflict betweenreason and passion. Why did he try at all

costs to eliminate time as irreversibilityfrom the fundamental equations of phys-ics? He knew well enough that, like every-one else, he was getting older day by day.What did it mean for him to say that timeis an illusion? Perhaps he was expressinghis faith in our symbols: if there was notime direction in the relativity equationshe wrote, that was because there was notime in the Universe. But this does not

explain why it was so important to elimi-nate time. A passage in which Einstein

explains what scientists are may help us

40 Prigogine, Science, Reason and Passion


4/5

understand his motive. Describing thepeople who the Angel of God wouldspare if ordered to drive the unworthyfrom the Temple of Science, he says,

Most of them are odd, introverted andlonely individuals who, despite theircommon traits, actually resemble eachother less than do those who have beendriven out. What led them to theTemple? . One of the most powerfulmotives hat drive people to art and sci-

ence is the urge to get away rom a hum-drum existence, with ts pain and desper-ate void, to escape from the bonds ofceaselessly hanging personal desires. tdrives ensitive people to transcend heirpersonal xistence and seek the world ofcontemplation nd objective nowledge.This motive s comparable o the ardentdesire hat draws city-dweller ut of hisnoisy, haotic surroundings o the peacethat reigns on the mountain heights,where his eye roams far through thecalm, pure air and caresses he peacefullines that seem created or eternity. Butbesides his negative motive, here s an-other, positive one. Man tries to shapefor himself, in some adequate way, asimple and clear mage of the world, andto triumph ver the world of experienceby replacing t, to some extent, with thisimage.

Thus science appears to be a way to es-cape from reality, to withdraw from aworld fraught with self-interest and con-flict. Boris Kusnetsov has written an inter-esting account of Dostoyevski's nfluenceon Einstein, who said repeatedly that heowed more to Dostoyevski than to anyother thinker. This may seem odd, but itbecomes clearer if we think of Einstein's

basically pessimisticattitude towards the

problems of existence. He was a verylonely man who acknowledged fewfriends and a few students, and had, hesaid, difficult relationships with both hiswives. We might add that he saw the on-slaught of anti-Semitism and the night-mares of two World Wars. It is hardly sur-prising, then, that he thought ofDostoyevski as a witness of human suffer-ing, especially the absurd facet manifestedin cruelty to animals and children.Einstein clearly expressed his deep-rootedattitude that for him, as it had been ages

before for Lucretius and Epicurus, sci-ence was a way of escaping from the hu-man condition and contemplating thesplendors of reason at work in nature. In1916, when Einstein was seriously ill, hetold Max Born's wife, who had asked himabout the fear of death, that he felt suchsolidarity with every living thing that itmattered nothing to him to know when aparticular existence within this infinitebecoming began or ended.

According to Kusnetsov, it was by ex-tending Dostoyevski's pessimism that

Einstein came to place the universality oflaw above the existence of individual be-

ings. We must bow before the beauty ofthis vision, but today we can better mea-sure its fragility.

We are all familiar with Einstein's sci-entific itinerary: first special relativity,then generalized relativity, eading to anextraordinary synthesis linking matter,space and time. And lastly, the applica-

tion of these ideas to cosmology. In ac-cordance with his belief, Einstein sug-gested the existence of a static universe,in some way the realization of Spinoza'sideas at the level of the Universe.Einstein thus aspired to describe the Uni-verse in geometric terms. He took up, ina new way, Descartes's idea of the worldas extension, in contrast to the world ofthought. History teaches, however, thatall dualism is fragile, and Einstein's geo-metric universe was to turn unexpectedlyinto a temporal universe, an evolving uni-verse of which the famous residual radia-tion at three absolute degrees is probablythe most direct proof.

Doubtless Einstein best embodies theideal that defines this vocation of phys-ics-the ideal of a knowledge that stripsfrom our conception of the world every-thing that he saw as merely the sign ofhuman subjectivity. The ambition of cer-tain mystical practices has always been toescape from life's bonds, from the tor-ments and disappointments of a chang-ing and deceptive world. In a way,Einstein took this ambition to be the

physicist'svocation

and,in so

doing,translated it into scientific terms. Mysticsseek to experience the world as an illu-sion; Einstein intended to demonstratethat it is indeed no more than an illusion,and that truth is a transparent and intel-ligible universe purified of all that affectshuman life: nostalgia or painful memoryof the past, dread or hope of the future.

But this idea of liberating man fromdread or hope of the future stems froma profoundly pessimistic position. Whatis man's role? To withdraw from thisworld, or to participate in the construc-

tion of a better one? Science-which, aswe have seen, began under the sign of aPromethean affirmation of the power ofreason-thus ended in alienation. Whatcan man do in a deterministic universein which he is a stranger? This is theanxiety expressed in so many recent writ-ings, like those of Jacques Monod, whospeaks of man as a gypsy on the outskirtsof the Universe, or of Richard Tarnas,who writes "For the deepest passion ofthe Western mind has been to reunitewith the ground of its being." I believe

this is true, and that our period is indeedone of reunification, of a quest forunity-witness the deep interest in na-ture shown by so many young people to-day, and man's growing sense of solidar-ity with all living beings. To exemplifythe transition towards this new stage, Ishall tell you something of my own per-sonal experience.

I received a humanistic education,

and my adolescence was marked by po-litical insecurity; this made me all themore sensitive to time as the frameworkfor changes in the human condition. Iwas an avid reader of Bergson, and his fa-mous "Time is invention or it is nothing"remains engraved in my memory. Dur-ing my scientific studies at the Free Uni-versity of Brussels, I may have felt, with-out altogether realizing it, how difficultit is to accept a science in which time isonly an illusion. As Karl Popper, anotherwitness of our times, has written, such aconception "brands unidirectionalchange as an illusion. This makes thecatastrophe of Hiroshima an illusion.This makes our world an illusion, andwith it all attempts to find out moreabout our world."

In effect, I felt the same shock thatBergson did, and my intellectual careerwas similarly placed under the sign ofthe study of time. But, faced with thesame dilemma, I reacted differently. Farfrom wishing to assign limits to scienceand restrict it to the study of reversiblephenomena, I was convinced that if sci-

ence studied only these, it was because itwas treating only overly simple phenom-ena in which irreversibility had no part.Hence my conviction that irreversibilitywould make its entree into science onlywith complex phenomena.

My work began with traditional ther-modynamics, as expanded by TheophileDe Donder, my teacher. I was struck bythe constructive role of nonequilibriumsituations. We can find a simple exampleof this in the thermodiffusion effect,which shows how the production of en-tropy generally has a dual role corre-

sponding to the simultaneous creation oforder and disorder. Let us take a systemwith two components, hydrogen and ni-trogen, mixed homogeneously in a con-tainer with two compartments, A and B.If we subject this system to a heat flowfrom outside, the external constraint im-poses a temperature gradient inside thesystem. The thermodiffusion effect con-sists of the fact that one of the compo-nents, say the hydrogen, will concentratein compartment A, and the other in com-partment B. Even in this simple case, we

Prigogine, Science, Reason and Passion 41


5/5

have two coupled phenomena at work.The heat flow leads to a positive produc-tion of entropy, but the diffusion acts likeconcentration gradients (this is what iscalled the thermodiffusion effect); wereit able to act alone, not coupled to theother process, it would lead to a negativeproduction of entropy. This effect showsthat irreversibility s a dual phenomenon,for it corresponds to dissipation (therethe heat flow) and the formation of or-der (here the thermal diffusion).

This is, of course, only a very simple ex-

ample, but one that struck me forcefullyand, in some ways, oriented my scientific

itinerary, leading me first to study theconstructive effects of nonequilibrium.

Today nonequilibrium physics is in full

development. Surprise follows surprise:regular temporal structures, oscillatingchemical reactions, irregular temporalstructures (dissipative Chaos), spatial (orTuring) structures. The constructive roleof

nonequilibriumis now an established

fact, but how can it be reconciled with theessential contents of Newton's Law, which

implies equivalence between past and fu-ture? As I said before, this is the paradoxof time. The time paradox is closely re-lated to others-the quantum paradox,the cosmological paradox-which in thelast analysis are also linked to the role oftime. In a nutshell, the quantum paradoxderives from the fact that the fundamen-tal equation in quantum mechanics is

symmetrical n time, hence it is our mea-surements, our interventions that give di-

rection to time. In quantum mechanics,man is the father, rather than the child,of time. Modern cosmology also posedthe problem of time, but in a highly dra-matic way, with the discovery of the bigbang. What could be more irreversiblethan the transition from a pre-universe toa universe such as the one we know? Thisis not the place to go further into these

problems; they are studied in detail in mybook Time, Chaos and the Quantum.

Clearly, we must face up to the factthat the very notion of a law of naturemust be revised. We can no longer be

content with laws that affirm an equilib-rium between past and future. In this

paper I have dealt mainly with the ideo-

logical conflict between reversible time(as formulated, for instance, inNewtonian physics) and irreversible be-

coming (as it appears in thermodynam-ics). How can we go beyond the superbintellectual monuments represented byclassical, quantum and relativistic phys-ics? This is where a major event-therenovation of classical dynamics follow-

ing Poincare's fundamental works in the

nineteenth century and those of

Kolomogorov and many others in the

twentieth-played a great role. Theirstudies made it plain that not all dy-namic systems are similar. Dynamic sys-tems cannot be limited to regular or pe-riodic examples such as the pendulumor the movements of the planets.

To the contrary, most dynamic systemsare unstable. The trajectories fly apartexponentially, so far that their traces areinevitably lost after a certain amount oftime. These discoveries refute the objec-tions once made to Boltzmann's work.And as my colleagues and I have tried toshow, one can go further and formulatelaws of dynamics that account for thischaos. However, these laws apply only towholes, to statistical situations, not to tra-

jectories (or individual wave functions).Laws so conceived tell us not what is

going to happen, but what may happen.Consider the Universe at its inception.Was it not like a small child who mightbecome a musician, a lawyer or a shoe-maker, but not all of these things atonce? So irreversibility eems to be basedon instability. This, of course, leads to asubstantial unification of our image ofthe world, making all of nature's varied

aspects consistent with each other.Here in this room we have air-a gas-

eous mixture in equilibrium-and wehave living beings: nonequilibrium sys-tems par excellence. This variety s made

possible only by the constructive role ofthe arrow of time, which shows the fun-

damental distinction between the prop-erties of matter in equilibrium and in

nonequilibrium.Such a formulation, which takes ac-

count of instability and fluctuations, alsotranscends the traditional conflict be-tween the "two cultures," for the so-called human sciences cannot be orga-nized without the fundamental notionof evolution.

CONCLUSION

It is time to end.

Science is a dialogue between manand nature. A dialogue, not a soliloquy,as the conceptual transformations towhich we have been led over the past fewdecades have shown. Indeed, science is

part of that search for the transcenden-tal that is common to so many culturalactivities: art, music, literature.

This relationship to the transcendentalhas haunted man since paleolithic times.The questions were not posed in vain;they have led to what we consider themost striking manifestations of human

creativity in all domains. Each domainhas it own specific aspects, of course, justas each historical period has its own out-look. Sometimes we live mainly on the

heritage of the past, and explore itswealth; this is when science is "reason. " Atother times we seek new perspectives, and

try to guess what direction we are goingto take. These are the times when passionand reason mingle inextricably.

Let us go back to Jacques Monod. Atthe end of La nouvelle alliance, Isabelle

Stengers and I wrote,

Jacques Monod was right: the ancientanimistic alliance is indeed dead, andwith it all the others that saw us as vol-untary, conscious subjects, each withour own projects, each enclosed in astable identity and longstanding cus-toms, all citizens of a world made forus. That purposeful, static and harmo-nious world was destroyed by the Co-pernican revolution when it hurled theearth into infinite space. Nor is ourworld that of the "modern alliance":the silent, monotonous world fromwhich ancient spells had been cast out.the clockwork world over which we hadsupposedly been given urisdiction. Na-ture was not made for us, or deliveredup to our whim. As Jacques Monodsays, the time has come for us to as-sume the risks of human adventure,but if we are able to do so, that is be-cause this is the way n which we nowparticipate n cultural and natural evo-lution. This is the lesson natureteaches, would we but listen. Scientificknowledge, drawn rom the dreams ofinspired-that is supernatural-revela-tion, can be seen today as at once the"poetic echo" of nature and a natural

process within nature: an open processof production and invention in anopen, productive and inventive world.The time has come for new alliances-ties that have always existed but werelong misunderstood-between the his-tory of man, human societies, humanknowledge, and the adventure of ex-ploring nature.

Our time is one of expectation, of

anxiety, of bifurcation. Far from an"end" of science, I feel our period willsee the birth of a new vision, of a new sci-ence whose cornerstone encloses the ar-row of time; a science that makes of us

and our creativity the expression of afundamental trend in the universe.

Bibliography

Prigogine, I. Laws of Chaos, Laws of Nature (forth-coming).

Prigogine, I., and Stengers, I. La nuova alleanza(Turin: Einaudi, 1981).

Prigogine, I., and Stengers, I. Time, Chaos and theQuantum: Towards he Resolution of the Time Paradox(New York: Harmony Books, 1993).

Prigogine, I., and Stengers, I. Tra l tempo l'eternitt(Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 1989).

42 Prigogine Science Reason and Passion

prigogine - science, reason and passion (1996)

Documents