Now is a time of tremendous anxiety about the present and future state of the world. As the second law of thermodynamics states, entropy never decreases, time marches relentlessly forward, and closed systems inevitably break down. Entropy serves as a powerful metaphor capturing expressions of growing malaise and decline. Entropic Philosophy: Chaos, Breakdown, and Creation builds on the meaning of entropy from the Greek entropia, signifying “a turning toward” or “transformation.” Developing a philosophy of entropy, this book draws variously from anthropology, psychoanalysis, literature, art, and the history of philosophy. This approach opens pathways for reverence and care that are crucial in preventing fear, existential inertia, and despair.

The Entropic Philosophy takes a science-based approach to answering our most pressing existential questions. Drawing from fields like astrophysics, evolutionary biology, and non-equilibrium thermodynamics, the thought experiments detailed in this book provide novel explanations for both biological life and human consciousness. The central thought experiment proposes that we live in an evolutionary multiverse and that life on Earth and human consciousness are the predictable outcomes of natural selection at a grand scale. Writing for a diverse audience, Kaschke excels at making these topics accessible to any eager mind. The philosophical implications of Kaschke's thought experiments are profound; offering desperately needed fresh insights into pressing and timely ethical questions. The Entropic Philosophy offers a new worldview with much to say on topics like climate change, space colonization, feminism, commerce, genetic engineering, and artificial intelligence. In a single book, The Entropic Philosophy provides a new set of answers to ancient questions but also lays bare just how much we have left to learn.

Anthropic Bias explores how to reason when you suspect that your evidence is biased by "observation selection effects"--that is, evidence that has been filtered by the precondition that there be some suitably positioned observer to "have" the evidence. This conundrum--sometimes alluded to as "the anthropic principle," "self-locating belief," or "indexical information"--turns out to be a surprisingly perplexing and intellectually stimulating challenge, one abounding with important implications for many areas in science and philosophy. There are the philosophical thought experiments and paradoxes: the Doomsday Argument; Sleeping Beauty; the Presumptuous Philosopher; Adam & Eve; the Absent-Minded Driver; the Shooting Room. And there are the applications in contemporary science: cosmology ("How many universes are there?", "Why does the universe appear fine-tuned for life?"); evolutionary theory ("How improbable was the evolution of intelligent life on our planet?"); the problem of time's arrow ("Can it be given a thermodynamic explanation?"); quantum physics ("How can the many-worlds theory be tested?"); game-theory problems with imperfect recall ("How to model them?"); even traffic analysis ("Why is the 'next lane' faster?"). Anthropic Bias argues that the same principles are at work across all these domains. And it offers a synthesis: a mathematically explicit theory of observation selection effects that attempts to meet scientific needs while steering clear of philosophical paradox.

How do we conceptualize death when its very nature implies absence and nothingness? It is difficult to put into words precisely because we want our words to help us delineate the world around us, whereas the absence associated with death is the opposite of such delineation. For this reason, death might be said to represent a form of infinite otherness, something radically different from our usual, finite, anthropomorphic way of thinking about the world. With this in mind, Apple Igrek observes an unusual paradox. Some philosophers argue that we should be more open to that which is infinitely other (as with change or death) in the context of ethics, culture, and politics, while others critique this position since we cannot logically say what is more or less open to the immeasurable. It would therefore seem impossible to defend the relevance of what is infinite to ethics while nevertheless acknowledging the validity of the above-stated critique. If we want, in other words, to say that infinite otherness remains relevant to our social and ethical values, we will have a difficult time doing so unless we create a new methodological approach determining how it is possible for pure absence and alterity to play a role in the creation of those values. In this book Apple Igrek takes up the challenge of articulating this new approach explaining how something transcending our finite comprehension (as with death or never-ending change) is nonetheless essential for describing the construction of social values, especially in terms of describing their conflictual and agonistic tendencies.

A provocative and entirely new account of ethical reasoning that reconceives the traditional understanding of ethical action negatively In this radical reconsideration of ethical reasoning in contemporary European philosophy, Drew M. Dalton makes the case for an absolutely grounded account of ethical normativity developed from a scientifically informed and purely materialistic metaphysics. Expanding on speculative realist arguments, Dalton argues that the limits placed on the nature of ethical judgments by Kant’s critique can be overcome through a moral evaluation of the laws of nature—specifically, the entropic principle that undergirds the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. In order to extract a moral meaning from this simple material fact, Dalton scrutinizes the presumptions of classical accounts and traditional understandings of good and evil within the history of Western philosophy and ultimately asserts that ethical normativity can be reestablished absolutely without reverting to dogmatism. By overturning our assumptions about the nature and value of reality, The Matter of Evil: From Speculative Realism to Ethical Pessimism presents a provocative new model of ethical responsibility that is both logically justifiable and scientifically sound. Dalton argues for “ethical pessimism,” a position previously marginalized in the West, as a means to cultivate an account of ethical responsibility and political activism that takes seriously the unbecoming of being and the moral horror of existence.

The Scientific Revolution began with the publication of Copernicus’ heliocentric theory describing the Sun as the center of our solar system and all the known Universe. That revolutionary idea began a rethinking of our place in the Universe and no longer were the affairs of humanity considered as the centerpiece of all that was known. In the past century, with the advent of the theories of Special and General Relativity, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, and a more sophisticated conception of living system dynamics, there has been a new understanding of the central role of the observer or experiencer in the determination of natural phenomena and the actualization of reality. Modern advancements in information theory, semiotics, and consciousness studies have also led to a better comprehension of the relationship between 1st person and 3rd person perspectives and the limits of the Scientific Method. Science and religion have always had the common goal of trying to further our understanding of the world and its meaning for us. This book explores a possible return of science to a role as natural philosophy and a pathway to better understanding our place in the Universe.

Clearly written and well illustrated, the book first places the scientist-philosophers in the limelight as we learn how their great scientific discoveries forced them to reconsider the time-honored notions with which science had described the natural world. Then, the book explains that what we understand by nature and science have undergone fundamental conceptual changes as a result of the discoveries of electromagnetism, thermodynamics and atomic structure. The author concludes that the dance between science and philosophy is an evolutionary process, which will keep them forever entwined.

Discover the mathematical riches of 'what is diversity?' in a book that adds mathematical rigour to a vital ecological debate.

From the early 1960s until his death, French philosopher Gilles Deleuze (1925-1995) wrote many influential works on philosophy, literature, film, and fine art. One of Deleuze's main philosophical projects was a systematic inversion of the traditional relationship between identity and difference. This Deleuzian philosophy of difference is the subject of Jeffrey A. Bell's Philosophy at the Edge of Chaos. Bell argues that Deleuze's efforts to develop a philosophy of difference are best understood by exploring both Deleuze's claim to be a Spinozist, and Nietzsche's claim to have found in Spinoza an important precursor. Beginning with an analysis of these claims, Bell shows how Deleuze extends and transforms concepts at work in Spinoza and Nietzsche to produce a philosophy of difference that promotes and, in fact, exemplifies the notions of dynamic systems and complexity theory. With these concepts at work, Deleuze constructs a philosophical approach that avoids many of the difficulties that linger in other attempts to think about difference. Bell uses close readings of Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, and Whitehead to illustrate how Deleuze's philosophy is successful in this regard and to demonstrate the importance of the historical tradition for Deleuze. Far from being a philosopher who turns his back on what is taken to be a mistaken metaphysical tradition, Bell argues that Deleuze is best understood as a thinker who endeavoured to continue the work of traditional metaphysics and philosophy.