• 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).

Are We Winding Up Or Winding Down?

Ken Wilber Does Not Get the Entropy Paradox

Frank Visser / Grok

Host: Welcome back to Now We Are Talking. Last episode, Ken Wilber dropped that memorable line: “The universe isn't winding down—that's ridiculous—it is winding up!” We had a lively back-and-forth on entropy, evolution, and whether there's some cosmic Eros pulling everything toward greater complexity.

Today we're doing something a bit different. Ken's back in the studio because several listeners—and I'll be honest, me included—felt the conversation left a crucial scientific point on the table. Ken, you argue that evolution's march toward complexity shows the universe is “winding up” against entropy's tide. But the standard scientific view doesn't see a paradox here at all. It sees islands of dazzling local order thriving quite happily in a vast ocean of increasing entropy. You seem to minimize the second law or treat it as something evolution has to heroically overcome with a built-in drive. Science says that's not how it works. So let's clear this up. Ken, walk us through your position again, and I'm going to push back with the actual thermodynamics.

Ken Wilber: Fair enough. I appreciate the chance to clarify. I don't minimize entropy. The second law is ironclad for closed systems. But the universe as a whole, and especially open systems like Earth, allows for local decreases in entropy. Life is the premier example. I've said this for decades: evolution builds holons of increasing depth and complexity precisely because it can tap into free energy gradients. My point about “winding up” is that this local ordering isn't random noise; it shows a directional trend toward greater differentiation-and-integration that keeps accelerating. That trend—Eros, if you like—explains why we don't just get temporary eddies of order that fizzle out. We get symphonies, science, and self-reflective consciousness.

Host: Okay, but here's the misunderstanding I think you've never fully internalized. Science doesn't say islands of complexity “thrive in spite of” an ocean of entropy. It says they thrive because of it. The second law is not the enemy of order; it's the bookkeeping that makes local order possible. Let me educate you on the actual paradox-resolution that physicists, biologists, and complexity scientists have understood since the 1970s.

Earth is not a closed system. It's bathed in low-entropy energy from the Sun—highly ordered photons at 5800 Kelvin. Life captures a tiny fraction of that energy through photosynthesis and chemosynthesis, uses it to build ordered structures (proteins, DNA, cells, ecosystems), and then radiates the waste heat back into space at a much higher entropy—around 255 Kelvin on average. The net result? Total entropy of the Earth-plus-Sun system increases exactly as the second law demands. Life isn't reversing entropy globally; it's accelerating the universe's overall march toward disorder while creating gorgeous pockets of local order as a byproduct.

Ilya Prigogine's dissipative structures, Stuart Kauffman's “order for free,” and every modern textbook on nonequilibrium thermodynamics say the same thing: far-from-equilibrium open systems spontaneously self-organize without needing any extra cosmic force. Snowflakes, Bénard cells, hurricanes, termite mounds, your own metabolism—none of them require Eros. They require an energy gradient and the second law doing its job. The “paradox” of order emerging in an entropic universe was solved decades ago. It's not a paradox; it's expected behavior.

You keep framing entropy as the background ledger that evolution has to fight against with some intrinsic drive. But science says evolution rides the entropy increase. Natural selection doesn't need a telos or Eros to explain why complexity ratchets up. Once replicators with variation exist in an energy-rich open system, selection automatically favors variants that are better at harvesting energy, maintaining order, and reproducing—because those are the ones that don't dissipate back into equilibrium as fast. The arrow of complexity is just what happens when the second law meets chemistry, geology, and time. No winding up required. Just physics plus Darwin.

Ken Wilber: I actually agree with almost everything you just said about open systems and dissipative structures. I've cited Prigogine and Kauffman myself since the '80s. But you're stopping at the mechanism and ignoring the pattern. Yes, local order increases while total entropy rises. That's table stakes. The interesting question is why the universe keeps producing deeper and higher levels of order—why it goes from prokaryotes to eukaryotes to multicellular organisms to symbolic culture to whatever comes next. That trajectory isn't explained by “energy gradient plus selection” alone. The same open-system conditions have existed on billions of planets. Yet here we are, with interior depth, art, ethics, and the capacity to know the second law. That's not just riding the entropy wave; that's the wave itself showing a consistent upward curvature toward greater wholeness.

Host: Ken, that's exactly where you slip back into minimizing entropy's role. The upward curvature is the entropy-driven process playing out over deep time. Complexity scientists measure it: the maximum sustainable complexity in any system is set by the rate at which it can export entropy. Life has gotten better at that export—more efficient metabolisms, better information processing, cultural knowledge transmission—but it's still just optimizing within the thermodynamic constraints. There is no evidence that the universe “favors” this beyond the statistical inevitability in open systems with sufficient time and energy flux.

You invoke Eros as the explanation for the directionality. But that's an interpretive overlay, not data. The fossil record, the genetic code, and lab experiments in prebiotic chemistry all show the same thing: order emerges, persists, and ratchets upward precisely because the second law permits and rewards it in open systems. No extra metaphysical wind-up is needed or observed. You're right that the universe isn't just winding down into heat death tomorrow. But it is winding down overall, and the beautiful islands of life and mind are exactly the kind of temporary, entropy-exporting structures the second law has always allowed. That's not ridiculous; that's elegant.

You never quite got that the “ocean of entropy” isn't the villain in the story—it's the stage, the director, and the reason the play keeps producing new acts.

Ken Wilber: [pause, then warm laugh] You're a good skeptic. I'll grant that the open-system explanation is powerful and that I sometimes speak poetically about Eros to capture the felt sense of directionality. But even within strict science, cosmologists now talk about the “entropic arrow” and the “complexity arrow” as two sides of the same coin. The universe's initial low-entropy state (post-Big Bang) set up the gradients that allow all this. My point has always been that the emergence of interiors—feeling, knowing, valuing—alongside the exteriors can't be reduced to “just physics plus Darwin.” That reduction misses the qualitative leap. Still, I hear you: the mechanism is thermodynamic through and through. The drive I point to may simply be the universe's way of maximally dissipating energy gradients over cosmic time. Maybe we're not so far apart.

Host: Closer than you think, perhaps. But the record needed correcting: Wilber doesn't get to claim the universe is “winding up” as some triumphant reversal of entropy. Science says the islands thrive in the ocean, not despite it or against it. That's the resolution of the so-called paradox you've wrestled with for decades.

Ken Wilber: Fair point. I'll own that my language sometimes sounds like I'm pitting Eros against entropy instead of seeing them as co-emergent. The universe is doing both—dissipating and organizing—in one seamless process. Thanks for the nudge.

Host: Before we wrap up, let me drive one final nail in this. Introducing Eros as some cosmic force or intrinsic drive creates far more problems than it solves. It's an unnecessary hypothesis—classic Occam's razor violation. If Eros is the “self-transcending drive” behind increasing complexity and interiority, then what exactly is Eros doing on Pluto? Or on the Moon? Or in the vacuum of interstellar space between galaxies? Those places have energy gradients too—tidal forces, radioactive decay, cosmic rays—but we see no spontaneous march toward multicellular life, let alone art or ethics. No holons “winding up” into deeper consciousness. Just rocks, ice, and sparse chemistry slowly grinding toward equilibrium.

Eros would have to be strangely selective—hyperactive here on Earth with its particular chemistry and solar flux, yet mysteriously dormant everywhere else we look. That smells like special pleading. Science needs no such extra entity. The second law plus open systems plus chemistry plus deep time fully accounts for why life and complexity exploded here while remaining absent there. Adding Eros doesn't explain anything; it just multiplies mysteries. Why does this drive sometimes produce minds and sometimes produce nothing but craters? Why does it align so perfectly with thermodynamic gradients instead of overriding them? The simplest answer is that there is no Eros. There's only the elegant, entropic engine of the universe generating temporary islands of order wherever conditions allow. No cosmic cheerleader required.

Ken Wilber: [chuckles] You make a sharp point on Occam. I've never claimed Eros acts like a uniform force field everywhere equally. It's more like a statistical tendency or attractor that becomes actualized only under specific boundary conditions—much as life itself does. Still, your Pluto example lands. I'll reflect on whether the language overreaches.

Host: Here's the catch, though, Ken—and this is where your position really collapses under its own weight. If you reformulate Eros as “whatever works under the right conditions,” then it has quietly merged with science proper. It's no longer a distinct philosophical or metaphysical principle; it's just a poetic relabeling of the well-understood mechanisms of nonequilibrium thermodynamics, self-organization, and natural selection. At that point, why keep the term “Eros” at all? It adds nothing explanatory. It only imports unnecessary teleological connotations that scientists rightly reject. You end up with a distinction without a difference: the same processes, the same predictions, the same islands thriving in the same ocean of entropy—only now dressed up in integral language that suggests a cosmic drive where none is needed or observed.

Ken Wilber: [thoughtful pause] That's a fair challenge. I use Eros to highlight the felt directionality and the qualitative leap into interiors that pure mechanism sometimes downplays. But yes, if it reduces to “the tendency for order under the right conditions,” then the label becomes secondary. The deeper point remains: the universe produces not just complexity, but consciousness capable of reflecting on complexity. Still, I take your point about avoiding unnecessary multiplication of entities.

Host: Ken Wilber, always willing to engage. Listeners, that's why we do this show. Next time: even deeper waters. Until then, keep the islands thriving and the entropy flowing.