• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Fred Spier's Big History

Energy, Complexity, and the Limits of a Universal Explanation

Frank Visser / ChatGPT

Fred Spier occupies an interesting position in the development of Big History. He is less well known to the general public than David Christian, but his theoretical ambitions are, in some respects, greater. Christian has become the great storyteller of Big History, organizing cosmic, geological, biological, and human history into a sequence of major thresholds. Spier has attempted something more demanding: to identify a general explanatory principle that might connect all these domains.

Fred Spier

His proposal is deceptively simple. Big History, Spier argues, can be understood as the history of the emergence, persistence, transformation, and demise of complexity. Complexity emerges when matter and energy interact under the right conditions. Energy flows through matter, and when those flows fall within appropriate boundaries, new forms of organized matter can arise and persist. Spier calls these favorable circumstances “Goldilocks circumstances.” His central theoretical triad is therefore matter, energy, and complexity, with entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics providing an essential background.

This is an attractive framework. It is also a framework that becomes increasingly problematic the more seriously one asks what, precisely, it explains.

From regimes to energy flows

Spier's theoretical project goes back at least to his 1996 book The Structure of Big History. There he introduced the deliberately broad concept of the “regime”: a more or less regular but ultimately unstable pattern possessing some temporal permanence. The concept could apply to galaxies, organisms, ecological systems, societies, and civilizations alike.

This was a clever conceptual move. Instead of beginning with conventional disciplinary categories—physics, chemistry, biology, anthropology, history—Spier asked what these apparently different objects have in common. A star, a bacterium, an ecosystem, and a human society are radically different entities, but all are organized processes that persist for some period of time before being transformed or destroyed.

The later formulation sharpened this insight. In Big History and the Future of Humanity, first published in 2010 and subsequently revised, Spier proposed that the rise and demise of complexity could be understood by examining energy flows through matter within favorable boundary conditions. His chapter on the general approach explicitly organizes the argument around matter and energy, complexity, energy flows, and the Goldilocks Principle.

This makes Spier's Big History model fundamentally different from a simple chronology. He does not merely ask, “What happened next?” He asks why certain structures could emerge at particular moments and why they subsequently remained possible.

That is an important distinction.

The Goldilocks Principle

The most memorable component of Spier's model is undoubtedly the Goldilocks Principle. The metaphor is taken from the children's story in which Goldilocks rejects what is too hot and what is too cold and chooses what is “just right.”

Spier generalizes this intuition across cosmic history. Stars require particular ranges of temperature, pressure, density, and energy conditions. Chemical complexity requires other conditions. Life requires still others. Human beings require yet another set of environmental and energetic conditions. Complexity is therefore not possible under arbitrary circumstances. It requires a suitable window of conditions.

The conceptual advantage is considerable. The universe does not simply produce complexity everywhere and at all times. Complexity is highly conditional.

A star is possible because gravity creates the pressures and temperatures required for nuclear fusion. Heavy elements become possible because earlier generations of stars create and disperse them. Planets provide different chemical and physical environments. Life requires a remarkably restricted combination of conditions. Complex organisms require still more. Human societies depend upon elaborate ecological, climatic, technological, and social conditions.

Spier is therefore quite right to emphasize contingency.

This is one of the strongest aspects of his model. It resists the temptation to tell cosmic history as though the universe were somehow destined to produce human beings. Complexity has emerged repeatedly, but its emergence depends upon particular circumstances. When those circumstances disappear, complexity can disappear with them.

The problem begins when “Goldilocks conditions” cease to be a specific explanatory concept and become a general label for whatever conditions happen to permit something to exist.

When explanation becomes description

This is the central weakness of Spier's model.

Suppose we ask why life emerged on Earth. The answer, in Spier's framework, is that Earth possessed Goldilocks conditions suitable for life: appropriate temperatures, chemical ingredients, energy flows, liquid water, and so forth.

That is true.

But it does not yet explain the origin of life.

It tells us why life could exist here rather than on a planet with completely unsuitable conditions. It does not tell us how nonliving chemistry crossed the enormous conceptual and historical gap into biological organization.

The same problem appears repeatedly at higher levels. Why did multicellular organisms emerge? Because certain conditions permitted increasing biological complexity. Why did humans emerge? Because particular ecological and energetic conditions permitted greater biological and cultural complexity.

Again, this is plausible. But the explanatory work is often being done by the empirical sciences underlying the Big History narrative, rather than by the Goldilocks concept itself.

A contemporary review identified precisely this difficulty: Goldilocks conditions vary enormously from one type of complexity to another, and Spier does not provide a general quantitative definition that would allow the principle to function as a predictive law.

This does not make the concept useless. It makes it closer to a meta-principle than a scientific law.

“Complexity requires suitable conditions” is an excellent organizing principle. It is much less impressive as a mechanism.

Complexity is the elephant in the room

The deeper problem concerns the word “complexity” itself.

Spier openly recognizes that complexity is difficult to define and measure universally. He therefore discusses characteristics such as the variety of components and the interactions among them rather than claiming to possess a single definitive metric. He also borrows Eric Chaisson's concept of power density, while explicitly refusing to use it as the sole measure of complexity.

This caution is welcome. But it creates a theoretical dilemma.

If complexity is the principal dependent variable of the model, we need to know what counts as more complex and what counts as less complex. Otherwise the claim that complexity has increased across cosmic history risks becoming partly circular.

Human brains are more complex than rocks. Fine.

But is a rainforest more complex than an agricultural field? Is a mature forest more complex than a city? Is a coral reef more complex than an industrial society? Is biodiversity a form of complexity? Is technological differentiation complexity in the same sense as biological differentiation?

These questions become particularly important once Spier reaches human history.

He argues that human societies constitute the greatest known forms of complexity in the universe. This is a defensible statement if “known” is emphasized: we know of no extraterrestrial system demonstrably more complex than terrestrial civilization. But it is not the same thing as establishing a universal evolutionary hierarchy in which humans represent the culmination of cosmic complexification.

Spier himself has been careful to reject the stronger interpretation. In his response to criticism, he explicitly denied that he was claiming an overall increase in the complexity of the universe. He stressed instead that increasingly complex structures arise in relatively small pockets while much of the rest of the universe becomes less complex or remains comparatively simple.

That clarification is important—and it makes Spier's model considerably more defensible.

The universe is not simply becoming more complex

This is where Spier's model has an advantage over more triumphalist versions of cosmic evolution.

The history of the universe is not a straightforward march from simplicity to complexity. Most of the universe remains remarkably simple. Stars form and die. Galaxies evolve. Complex structures appear in localized regions. Biological complexity occupies a tiny fraction of cosmic space.

Spier therefore emphasizes both the rise and the demise of complexity. This is a significant improvement over narratives that focus almost exclusively on emergence.

A civilization can collapse. An ecosystem can disappear. A species can become extinct. A star can exhaust its fuel. A planet can become uninhabitable. Complexity is not guaranteed permanence.

This makes Spier's Big History fundamentally historical rather than merely developmental. His regimes are temporary. They arise, persist, transform, and disappear.

That insight deserves to survive even if the larger theoretical apparatus does not.

Spier and the Second Law

Spier also tries to place the entire story within thermodynamics. He explicitly assigns an important role to the Second Law and entropy. His argument is broadly familiar: local organization and complexity do not violate thermodynamics because increases in local order can occur while entropy increases elsewhere.

This is essential. A living organism can maintain extraordinarily elaborate organization because it is an open system exchanging matter and energy with its environment. A human being does not create order from nothing; food and oxygen are taken in, waste and heat are exported, and the overall entropy budget remains compatible with the Second Law.

But this is exactly where Big History writers must tread carefully.

The Second Law does not say that everything becomes more disordered in the everyday sense of the word. Nor does it say that complexity cannot increase. Entropy is a thermodynamic state variable, and the relationship between entropy, order, information, and complexity is subtle.

Spier himself acknowledges difficulties here. In his response to a critical review, he noted that applying the Second Law across the expanding universe raises nontrivial questions about how entropy should be conceptualized in cosmology. He also acknowledged that a comprehensive treatment of entropy throughout Big History remains an unresolved issue.

That is a much more intellectually respectable position than simply invoking entropy as a synonym for disorder.

Nevertheless, Spier's terminology occasionally risks blurring important distinctions. A particularly sharp criticism concerned his use of “entropy” in contexts ranging from thermodynamic entropy to pollution or contamination. The reviewer argued that this stretches the concept beyond its scientific meaning.

This criticism should be taken seriously.

Big History gains intellectual credibility when it imports concepts from physics, but it also incurs a corresponding obligation to use those concepts with physical precision.

Energy does not explain evolution by itself

Spier's emphasis on energy is another major strength that can easily become a weakness.

There is no doubt that energy flows are indispensable to complexity. Stars, ecosystems, organisms, brains, and civilizations all depend upon energy transformations. The energetic dimension of cosmic and biological evolution is therefore fundamental.

But “energy is necessary” does not mean “energy explains the form that evolution takes.”

Energy does not by itself explain why one molecule forms rather than another. It does not explain the origin of genetic information. It does not explain why natural selection produces particular adaptations. It does not explain why consciousness appears, if consciousness does indeed emerge from biological organization. It certainly does not explain the content of human culture.

Energy is a constraint and an enabling condition. It is not necessarily the proximate mechanism.

This distinction is important because Spier sometimes approaches a “theory of everything” ambition. He presents his energy-flow and Goldilocks framework as an outline of a historical theory of almost everything.

The phrase is provocative, but it risks conflating levels of explanation.

Physics explains possibilities at one level. Chemistry explains emergent regularities at another. Biology introduces replication, variation, selection, development, ecological interaction, and inheritance. Human history introduces institutions, language, norms, symbolic systems, technology, power, and intentionality.

There are connections between these levels, but connections are not reductions.

The biological problem

This is perhaps the most important limitation if Spier's model is evaluated as a theory of evolution.

Biological evolution is not simply the accumulation of complexity made possible by increasing energy flows.

Evolution by natural selection can produce greater complexity under some circumstances, but it can also produce simplification. Parasites can lose genes. Organisms can become specialized. Evolution often favors efficiency rather than complexity. Many successful organisms are relatively simple.

Nor is there a universal biological tendency toward increasing complexity.

What matters is differential reproduction within particular ecological and developmental contexts.

Spier does acknowledge chance and necessity. His explanatory framework is intended primarily to identify necessities and constraints, while leaving considerable room for historical contingency.

But that admission also reveals the boundary of the model. The framework is much better at explaining why certain developments were possible than why a particular evolutionary trajectory actually occurred.

That is a crucial distinction.

The existence of an evolutionary possibility space is not the same as explaining the path evolution actually took.

Spier compared with Chaisson

Spier's model also sits very close to Eric Chaisson's work on cosmic evolution. Chaisson has developed the idea that increasing organizational complexity can be associated with increasing energy-rate density, measured as the rate of energy flow per unit mass. Spier adopts energy flows as a central theme but is more cautious about treating power density as a universal complexity metric.

This caution is justified.

A major scientific discussion of complexity and Big History has emphasized that successful complex systems tend to operate within optimum ranges of energy flow rather than obeying a simple maximum-energy or minimum-entropy principle.

Spier's Goldilocks idea therefore has considerable conceptual overlap with energetic approaches to complexity, but it is less quantitative.

That makes it easier to apply across disciplines—but also harder to test.

And this is perhaps the most revealing difference between a useful conceptual framework and a scientific theory. A framework can organize an enormous amount of knowledge without generating many risky predictions.

Spier's model is exceptionally good at the former.

Its performance on the latter is much less impressive.

Spier compared with David Christian

The contrast with David Christian is equally instructive.

Christian's Big History model is built around thresholds of increasing complexity. The familiar sequence moves from the Big Bang through stars, chemical elements, solar systems, Earth, life, humans, agriculture, and modernity. Each threshold occurs when the necessary ingredients and conditions come together.

Christian's model is therefore more pedagogical and narrative.

Spier's is more theoretical.

Christian asks the reader to understand the architecture of the story. Spier asks what general physical conditions make the architecture possible.

In practice, however, the two approaches converge considerably around Goldilocks conditions and complexity.

The danger is that the more abstract version can give an impression of explanation without necessarily providing more causal detail.

Christian's thresholds are obvious narrative landmarks. Spier's regimes and Goldilocks conditions are intended to become theoretical categories. But unless these categories generate measurable predictions, the difference may be more philosophical than scientific.

A subtle strength: contingency without nihilism

There is nevertheless something valuable in Spier's position that deserves emphasis.

His framework avoids two opposite mistakes.

The first is teleology: the idea that the universe was somehow aiming at humanity.

The second is nihilistic randomness: the idea that because historical outcomes are contingent, nothing general can be said about them.

Spier occupies the middle ground.

Physical laws constrain what can happen. Boundary conditions determine what can persist. Energy availability opens and closes possibilities. But within those constraints, chance and historical contingency remain.

This is probably the most defensible philosophical interpretation of the model.

The universe does not need to “want” complexity for complexity to emerge. Nor does complexity need to be inevitable for its emergence to be scientifically intelligible.

That is a useful corrective to many popular forms of cosmic evolutionism.

The problem of emergence

Where Spier's model ultimately reaches its deepest limitation is at the transitions between levels.

There is a tremendous difference between saying that a new level of organization depends upon favorable conditions and explaining how that new level actually emerges.

The emergence of stars from gravitational dynamics is one kind of transition.

The emergence of chemistry from physics is another.

The emergence of life from prebiotic chemistry is another.

The emergence of nervous systems, cognition, language, institutions, and symbolic culture involves still other mechanisms.

Calling all of these “increases in complexity” places them within a common conceptual space. It does not demonstrate that they are manifestations of one common causal process.

This is the temptation inherent in every Big History model: the desire for unity can become stronger than the evidence for unification.

Spier is more cautious than many cosmic evolutionists, but he does not entirely escape this temptation.

A useful framework, but not a theory of everything

The fairest verdict is therefore neither dismissal nor endorsement.

Spier's Big History model is valuable as a conceptual framework for thinking across enormous differences of scale. His concept of regimes provides a useful language for discussing temporary organized structures without prematurely dividing reality into disciplinary compartments. His emphasis on energy flows corrects explanations of complexity that ignore thermodynamic constraints. His Goldilocks Principle highlights the contingent environmental conditions required for new forms of organization. And his insistence that complexity can also disappear prevents Big History from becoming a simple story of inevitable progress.

But the framework becomes much less convincing when presented as a general explanatory theory.

“Energy flows through matter under suitable conditions” is too broad to explain the specific mechanisms responsible for biological evolution, cultural evolution, or historical change. “Complexity” remains insufficiently defined to function as a universal dependent variable. “Goldilocks conditions” can become a sophisticated restatement of the fact that things can exist only under conditions compatible with their existence. And thermodynamics, while indispensable, cannot simply be converted into a universal causal explanation of evolution.

There is therefore an important asymmetry in Spier's achievement.

He has done considerably better at identifying the constraints on complexity than at explaining the mechanisms generating particular forms of complexity.

That is not a trivial achievement. In fact, it may be the most defensible contribution of the model.

The larger significance of Spier's Big History

The enduring value of Spier's approach may ultimately lie less in its proposed “theory of everything” than in the intellectual attitude behind it.

Big History needs scientists, historians, and philosophers to resist the temptation to mistake their local explanations for the whole story. Physics cannot simply absorb biology; biology cannot simply absorb history; and history cannot ignore the physical conditions that make human existence possible.

Spier's great insight is that the boundaries between these domains are historically permeable. Galaxies provide the raw materials for stars; stars manufacture elements; planets provide chemical environments; chemistry makes life possible; life transforms environments; organisms generate nervous systems; nervous systems generate behavior; humans construct societies; societies transform planetary energy flows.

There is a genuine continuity here.

But continuity should not be confused with reduction.

The universe may have a single history without having a single explanatory law.

That, ultimately, is where Spier's model is most illuminating and most vulnerable. It offers a compelling grammar for telling the history of complexity, but grammar is not yet a causal theory. Its energy flows and Goldilocks circumstances tell us why complexity can emerge and survive in particular places. They do not, by themselves, tell us why the universe produced precisely the forms of complexity that it did.

Spier's Big History is therefore best understood not as a finished theory of cosmic evolution but as an ambitious research program: an invitation to investigate how physical constraints, energy flows, contingent environments, self-organization, biological evolution, and cultural innovation interact across deep time.

That is already enough to make it important.

But the intellectual challenge for Big History is to go one step further: from the observation that everything is connected to an explanation of how the connections actually work.

And that distinction—between a universal narrative, a unifying framework, and a genuine universal theory—is one of the most important distinctions any Big History project has to maintain.