Navigating Complexity in Big History

Leonid Grinin and Andrey Korotayev consider the value of periodization for a deeper understanding of the course of Big History and its specific phases. They analyze features of the periodization procedure of any history and Big History in particular as well as methodological rules of periodization. They consider why it is legitimate to have not one, but many periodizations, and give examples of various periodization bases, as well as possible periodizations of Big History. They also discuss important approaches for procedure of periodization and choosing of criteria for it, explain different types of periodizations, as well as their positive and negative aspects.

After nearly fifty years of theoretical exploration, this chapter undertakes a comparative analysis of various approaches to the analysis of trends and periods across Big History. The identified approaches include the Self-organizing Universe (Jantsch), Grand Unified Narrative (Christian), Cosmic Evolution (Chaisson), Perasmology (Aunger), Extended Evolution (LePoire), the Grand Sequence (Henriques and Volk) and Mega Evolution (Grinin). Each approach is evaluated based on scientific criteria such as parsimony, testability, external validity and the identification of natural kinds. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses, but looking overall, there is a disappointing lack of progress and the absence of a clear theoretical core, which suggests that the field is still grappling with fundamental challenges. Points of convergence do emerge, however: agreement among scholars that the overarching trend in Big History is an increase in maximal complexity across the various spatial and temporal scales since the origin of the universe; that a single, unified theory encompassing the physical, chemical/geological, biological, and cultural eras of Big History is feasible; of the need for a hierarchical treatment of periods within eras, each of which has specific dynamics; on the idea that significant changes, such as shifts in energy flow density or reaching system capacity, create conditions that initiate transitions to new periods and eras; and that transitions are themselves complex processes involving changes in energy flow, information and structural organization. However, disagreement persists concerning the best theory to explain these phenomena and which periods should be canonical in defining the Big History narrative. The chapter suggests potential avenues for advancement, including collaborative efforts to reach consensus, the use of Big History as the overarching frame for general education and the need for empirical studies to demonstrate the utility of Big Historical perspectives. Despite the obstacles, the chapter emphasizes the ongoing potential of Big History as a discipline, provided a concerted effort is made to address theoretical gaps and establish common ground.

The chapter presents preliminary results of a quantitative analysis of two patterns of complexity growth in the Big History—decelerating universal (cosmic) evolutionary development evidenced in the Universe for a few billions of years after the Big Bang (around 13.8 billion BP) and accelerating global (biosocial) evolutionary development observed for about 4 billion years on the planet Earth since the emergence of life on it and until the early 1970s. It is shown that the first pattern can be described with an astonishing accuracy (R² = 0.999996) by the following equation: y = C₁/(t − t₁*), where y is the rate of the universal complexity growth (measured as a number of phase transitions [accompanied by the growth of complexity] per a unit of time), C₁ is a constant, and t − t₁* is the time since the Big Bang Singularity (t₁* ~ 13.8 billion years BP). In the meantime, it was earlier shown that the second pattern could be described with an almost as high accuracy (R² = 0.9989–0.9991) by the following equation: y = C₂/(t₂* − t), where y is the rate of accelerating global (biosocial) evolutionary development, C₂ is another constant, and t₂* − t is the time till the twenty-first-century Singularity (t₂*, estimated to be around 2027, or 2029 CE). Thus, the post-Big-Bang hyperbolic decrease of universal complexity growth rate and the hyperbolic increase of the growth rate of global complexity in the last 4 billion years proceeded following the same law. We are dealing here with a perfect symmetry: (1) the rate of the universal (cosmic) complexity growth decreases when we move from the Big Bang Singularity, whereas the rate of the global complexity growth increases when we approach the twenty-first-century Singularity; (2) more specifically, as the time since the Big Bang Singularity increases n times, the universal (cosmic) complexity growth rate decreases the same n times, whereas when the time till the twenty-first-century Singularity decreased n times, the global complexity growth rate increased the same n times. A somehow more complex symmetry is observed as regards the interaction between energy dynamics and complexity growth within both processes. This suggests the identification of the following eons of the Big History: (1) eon of the hyperbolic deceleration of the universal complexity growth (from the Big Bang Singularity till 4 billion YBP); (2) eon of the hyperbolic acceleration of the global complexity growth (from 4 billion YBP till the early 1970s); (3) eon of the hyperbolic (?) deceleration of the global complexity growth (from the early 1970s till ?). Finally, Korotayev goes on to propose a full Big History periodization on the basis of the complexity growth patterns and phases. Within the proposed periodization, the whole course of the Big History is subdivided into three eons identified on the basis of the complexity growth pattern that is characteristic for the respective eon; each eon is subdivided into eras identified on the basis of the complexity growth driver that was typical for the respective era; and, finally, each era is subdivided into epochs identified on the basis of the highest level of complexity achieved within the respective epoch (thus, the borders between epochs correspond to complexity jumps such as the Big Bang nucleosynthesis, recombination, emergence of the first stars, “Neoproterozoic Revolution”, Cambrian explosion, Upper Paleolithic Revolution, transition from foraging to food production, Axial Age and so on).

Many questions remain unanswered regarding the organization and interpretation of Big History events. For example, should Big History be divided into distinct periods or processes, considering it is clearly a complex interplay of simultaneous, interacting processes? In such an uncertain context, how are models constructed and evaluated? At what level of abstraction should we begin when examining Big History?

This chapter draws important insights from several historical studies to develop a consistent view of Big History. It is crucial to consider many aspects of an evolving system, such as: (1) how the system learns from its environmental experiences; (2) how it extracts energy and resources to counteract the trend toward chaos and higher entropy; and (3) how it organizes itself at multiple levels to meet new challenges.

Various traditional scholarly disciplines contribute to different aspects of Big History, including astronomy, geology, evolutionary biology, evolutionary anthropology, and the history of civilizations. This multidisciplinary approach suggests a foundational framework of cosmic and terrestrial phases. The terrestrial phase encompasses the sequential evolution of life, humans, and civilization. Based on this framework, the timelines from various disciplines are consolidated along with their dynamic systems models. This base framework is then expanded to include more details.

This straightforward approach meets many criteria for an effective framework: it integrates knowledge from various disciplines, provides a simple and understandable model, can be extended in detail with nested transitions, and clearly demonstrates the acceleration of evolving complex adaptive systems (CAS). Similarly, proposed frameworks offer slightly different perspectives.

We propose a Big History framework based on a time-by-complexity relationship that the two authors converge on, and describe a synthesis from their prior independent work. In particular, the framework distinguishes a line of levels of combogenesis from quarks to culture, in contrast to patterns of emergence involving larger aggregates or groups. The framework identifies major transitions to novelty marked by innovations in general evolutionary dynamics (PVSR; propagation, variation, and selective retention), which have occurred multiple times following the Big Bang. As in Henriques’ Tree of Knowledge System, we take the Mind-Animal plane of dynamics as one of these major transitions because of the innovative PVSR-dynamics in the mindedness of animals. We note the need to simultaneously attend to patterns and processes of formation, and we describe avenues of further consideration that follow from this framework. These considerations can facilitate consensus in the periodization of big history.

How do we tell which events in evolution are the most important? Cognitive Archaeologists have identified seven stages in the methods used by our ancestors to teach, mostly, how to make and use tools. What they all have in common was that every teaching method was eventually found to be inadequate to pass on some particular new innovation, and that a new teaching method was needed. The purpose of this chapter is to find out whether these events follow an accelerating pattern. The results reveal that growth of complexity in evolution is deterministic. And that evolution is not a single process but a set of processes that arise one at a time. This is true of the two biological evolution processes, the seven cultural evolution processes and possibly three technology processes. The common factor is the transfer of information to the next generation. A hypothesis is presented that makes use of Chaos Theory Universality to explain how multiple levels of evolution can be integrated into one theory. The results challenge the established framework of evolutionary theory. The dates of our next evolutionary steps are predicted by the theory. What the steps will be is not predicted. Hoggard also looks at the hypothesis from a Big History point of view to examine its relevance to efforts to standardize periodization. The periodization presented is very closely tied to the hypothesis and its success or otherwise. In many ways it is unsuitable for attempts to find a common framework for periodization. For example, it has (theoretically) an infinite number of events as evolution accelerates. Also, five of the first ten events are about tools and language, which is unusual in Big History literature.

We develop a general theory of evolution that can be considered a comprehensive generalization and extension of Darwin’s theory. The basic idea is to consider not only the evolution of genetic information—as Darwin did—but also the evolution of very general information. It shows that evolution is characterized by the fact that new types of information have developed in leaps and bounds, each with new storage technologies, new duplication technologies and new processing technologies. This unified concept of evolution makes it possible, among other things, to (1) achieve a unified view of biological and cultural evolution; (2) find a natural periodization of the evolution from the formation of the earth until today; and (3) understand the rapid acceleration of evolution through the emergence of targeted variation mechanisms.

The present chapter is devoted to the issue of periodization of Big History in terms of levels of complexity, peculiarities of its phases (main or transitional) as well as directions of these phases (main direction, lateral, or dead-end). We will try to give a rather detailed picture of the unfolding universal evolution, which consists of 10 phases rather than a short scheme: cosmic–biological (life, etc.)–social (history, mind, etc.). The notions of main and transitional phases of Big History are introduced; and the importance of its planetary and chemical phases is shown. Such a complete picture of Big History has never been created before. These ten phases in our scheme are divided into five main phases and five transitional phases. We are going to show that these ten phases in our Big History scheme are divided in five main and five transitional phases. This a) reduces the qualitative gap between the main phases of Big History; b) reveals the mechanisms of evolutionary development and of the transition to a higher level of complexity; c) shows the importance of the planetary and chemical phases. We have also introduced the idea of continuous lines of evolution, for example, chemical evolution.

Complexity poses a significant challenge for big history because it is a central theme within the field, which organizes history into cosmological periods based on the sequential emergence of qualitatively distinct forms of complexity. How can big historians identify and differentiate distinct thresholds of emergent complexity while unifying the entire sequence under a single metric that illustrates the increase of complexity across various magnitudes and distinct forms? The use of a cosmic distance ladder by cosmologists suggests a similar approach for complexity: a complexity ladder for big history. While this paper does not establish a complexity ladder, it outlines the necessary framework for one and examines the relationship between a complexity ladder and chronological periodization.

Plotting time intervals between major events (Δtime) or simply event time vs. event number (event#) have been used as a method to corroborate qualitative trends of accelerated complexity increase in (big) history. Emphasis of such event time (interval) studies has been on fitting the Δtime data with appropriate mathematical models ([super]exponential, logistic, hyperbolic). This is typically followed by a discussion on the occurrence of a possible singularity or inflection point around the present time. The event time (interval) approach is attractive, because of its simplicity and the impressively linear correlations observed in plots of logarithm of Δtime [log(Δtime)] vs. event#. However, a variety of concerns has been expressed related to the basics underlying this method, which big historians should take at heart. Amongst others, there is no objective definition of a major event nor is there a quantitative criterion for the selection of such an event. Therefore, the selection of major events is subjective. Next, there is no sound support for the underlying assumption that all selected events have equal importance. The event selection is also biased from the perspective of today, resulting in an even spread of events over a logarithmic time scale. To further explore these issues, the event time interval approach is here applied to a series of cosmological events, calculated from first principles by Adams and Laughlin (in Review of Modern Physics 69:337–372, 1997) in their study “A dying universe”. This series of events starts at the Big Bang, proceeds via the formation and subsequent development and degeneration of stars, planets, galaxies, and black holes, as well as the decay of matter to, eventually, a dark, cool universe. The series of 37 major events span 200 orders of magnitude of time and is mainly situated in the future, hence big future. In contrast to previous event time interval studies exploring the past, Δtime increases continuously with cosmological event# both in the past and in the future. This corresponds to a continuous deceleration of change and, thus, points to a slow “death” of the universe instead of a dramatic singularity. This is most probably the result of the continuously expanding and, thus, cooling and thinning universe, resulting in a slowdown of cosmological processes. Log(Δtime) increases with event# via three stages, viz. first an S-shaped increase, followed by a linear, relatively flat part though still somewhat increasing, and, finally, an upswing. The two transitions between these three stages are probably the result of two changes, i.e. first from a homogeneous universe to a universe with local heterogeneity, structured matter and energy-dissipating systems, and next to an increasingly homogeneous universe. Alternatively, the three-stage log(Δtime) curve may be interpreted as evidence for a time bias, looking at both the past and future from the present time. As a result, log(Δtime) values are rather small for events in both the near past and future, as well as an increase for events further away in both the distant and diffuse past and future. Finally, simple simulations with different event time series have shown that an even spread of events over the whole log(time) range results in a linear correlation between log(Δtime) and log(time) vs. event #. In addition, large Δtime values relative to the event times themselves result in a linear correlation between log(Δtime) and log(time). In conclusion, the most reliable way to corroborate qualitative trends in (big) history is the study of objective, quantitative parameters, either for the magnitude of a characteristic or for the diversity of a system, over time. In addition, researchers are encouraged to further develop and explore other and/or new metrics for complexity in a big history context.

This chapter reimagines history as a journey of moral, intellectual, and spatial progress towards a future where humanity explores the deep cosmos, attains a complete grasp of natural law, and develops an ideal ethical framework for societal and environmental stewardship. It speculates that, while the Second Law of Thermodynamics necessitates depletion of the universe’s physical potential, this is offset by the growth of informational resources through ephemeralisation—doing more with less. Evolution is modelled as a hyper-exponential growth of combinatorial complexity, punctuated by resets involving creative destruction. Based on these ideas, the chapter estimates that humanity will reach an omniscient, omnipotent state, here called pleroma, in approximately twenty thousand years.

This chapter discusses and reviews the diverse approaches presented in this book to periodizing Big History by integrating frameworks rooted in complexity, information, energy flow, and evolutionary patterns. The chapter points out that this volume is unique because it brings together a wide range (but not all) of approaches to Big History periodization, something not done before, demonstrating how important, diverse, and useful the process of periodization is. Highlighting the interplay of cosmic and terrestrial dimensions, the contributions showcase various methodologies, from thermodynamic steady-states to networked cooperation, while emphasizing the absence of a universal periodization framework. Instead, the studies underline how distinct criteria—spanning matter, consciousness, and social evolution—offer unique perspectives on historical phases. While the approaches agree that complexity generally increases over time, this progression is neither deterministic nor uniform, and humanity now faces critical junctures that could either continue or reverse this trend. By presenting innovative frameworks and methodologies, this work illuminates the multifaceted nature of Big History and provides tools to better understand its intricate evolutionary trajectories.

Periodization serves as a powerful tool for organizing data, discerning developmental patterns, and forecasting future trends. This chapter explores a variety of approaches, including the derivation of mathematical relationships, intellectual synthesis, and the comparison of diverse frameworks. While the volume presents various periodizations, their complementary nature underscores the importance of integrating multiple approaches to better understand complexity across scales. Key themes include addressing gaps in terminology and complexity metrics, comparing cosmic and terrestrial evolutionary trajectories, and leveraging periodization to predict future developments. These insights converge toward a holistic understanding of complexity across cosmic, biological, and societal dimensions, shedding light on humanity’s and the universe’s evolutionary paths. Two primary stages for understanding complexity in Big History are the development of physical and complex adaptive systems. The first stage tracks the progression from the Big Bang through stellar and planetary formation to the emergence of life, characterized by decreasing potential energies and increasing organizational complexity. The second focuses on life’s evolution, marked by hyperbolic growth across biological, human, and technological phases, with stages accelerating geometrically. Key insights include the cascading interplay between evolutionary layers, the dual dynamics of horizontal and vertical evolution, and the non-deterministic nature of complexity development. Identified patterns, such as geometric accelerations and scaling behaviors, provide a foundation for forecasting future trends and understanding rapid systemic transformations. Challenges in unifying theories of complexity and evolution are discussed through proposing integrated frameworks that incorporate energy flow, information theory, and evolutionary timelines. Methodological considerations focus on interdisciplinary research, abstractness levels, and evaluating existing periodizations against complexity metrics, evolutionary mechanisms, and temporal scopes. The chapter concludes by outlining future directions for advancing Big History periodization and announcing a forthcoming volume that will explore complexity across cosmic, biological, and societal phases, aiming to deepen understanding and foster interdisciplinary dialogue within Big History studies.