ANEGENTROPY MANIFEST – English
The Foundation of a Unified Picture of Reality
Nikolay Viktorovich Kharitonov
Moscow | 2026
This work is registered with Zenodo. Cite by DOI.
Abstract
This manifesto represents an attempt to describe contemporary scientific knowledge within a unified, logically consistent picture of reality. At its foundation lies an observation: all processes in the Universe—from quantum fluctuations to the creation of artificial intelligence, from the Big Bang to the present—obey one fundamental principle: the Vector of Complexity.
The document relies on established scientific facts with verified references to authoritative sources, including lectures, publications in peer-reviewed journals, and works by recognized scientists. At the same time, certain propositions are speculative in nature and represent a philosophical generalization of scientific trends—such passages are explicitly marked in the text.
I also introduce the concept of Anegentropy—the process of conscious, purposeful, and efficient creation of an entropy gradient (ordering of entropy) by an intelligent system.
This work is not truth in the final instance, but an invitation to view the surrounding world from a different angle and, perhaps, a map for further research.
Keywords: second law of thermodynamics, quantum field theory, dissipative structures, negentropy, emergence, thermodynamics of life, artificial intelligence, cosmological evolution, information, anegentropy.
Introduction: From Chaos to Order
Science, religion, art, business, sociology—all these are different languages through which humanity describes the same thing: how order emerges from chaos, how choice arises from possibilities, how structure emerges from a cloud of possibilities. Below, I attempt to propose a language in which these descriptions cease to contradict one another.
The Universe has traversed a path from quark-gluon plasma through the formation of the first atoms, stars, galaxies, heavy elements, and planetary systems to life and intelligence. This is an empirical fact requiring no proof. It is important to emphasize that local complexity does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics, since the overall entropy of the Universe increases in the process. The question I pose: is there a unified principle and logic in this process?
My answer is yes. This principle is the creation of an entropy gradient. Passive creation (negentropy) is characteristic of natural evolution. Active, conscious creation (anegentropy) is characteristic of intelligence. This book is an attempt to trace this principle from quantum fields to the cosmological cycle and to show what it means for the individual, society, and the future of civilization. And perhaps to see in one’s own life not a random set of events, but participation in this grand process.
Part I. The Physical Foundation
1.1. In the Beginning Were Fields
At the foundation of everything lie not particles, but fields. Particles are merely temporary excitations of these fields. Modern quantum field theory regards fields as fundamental reality, and particles as their excited states [1]. Art Hobson, in his work “There are no particles, there are only fields,” convincingly demonstrates that reality is a set of universal quantized fields, and particles do not exist as independent entities. Steven Weinberg directly states: “The basic ingredients of nature are fields; particles are derivative phenomena” [2]. Electrons are quanta of the electron field. Photons are quanta of the electromagnetic field. The Standard Model describes approximately 25 universal fields.
Even “emptiness” (vacuum) is not nothing, but an active substrate full of virtual processes. Vacuum is the ground state of fields in which fluctuations constantly occur. The philosophical significance of this fact is enormous: reality is not a set of things, but a network of continuous field interactions. Matter is secondary to the field structure of the Universe. This overturns habitual perception: we consist not of “things,” but of processes.
1.2. Fluctuations as Points of Interaction
Fields interact. Their interactions generate fluctuations—bursts, deviations from the equilibrium state. A fluctuation is not simply random noise, but a node of converging interactions, bearing the imprint of all fields that converged within it. The more fields involved in the interaction and the more complex the character of these interactions, the more “rich” in properties the fluctuation becomes. Thus, primary information about the world is laid down—even before the emergence of particles.
Quantum vacuum fluctuations are constantly arising and disappearing virtual particle-antiparticle pairs. This is not mere philosophy. The Casimir Effect [6] is an experimentally confirmed phenomenon demonstrating that vacuum is full of activity. Two parallel conducting plates placed in a vacuum are attracted to each other due to the difference in quantum fluctuations between them and outside. This is direct proof that “emptiness” is an illusion. Moreover, contemporary research shows that quantum vacuum possesses a nontrivial topological structure, and its properties may be connected to the nature of dark energy [38]. Vacuum is not merely active—it is structured by possibilities embedded in the fundamental laws of field interactions.
An important conceptual step: we can view a fluctuation not as chance, but as a “assembly point” of the properties of interacting fields. Each fluctuation inherits the characteristics of those fields that interacted within it. This lays the foundation for a hierarchy of complexity: more complex fluctuations carry more information about field interactions, and consequently about the structure of reality.
The connection between fluctuations and information has deep roots in information theory. Claude Shannon, in his foundational 1948 work, defined information as a measure of uncertainty [31]. In this context, a fluctuation can be considered an informational event—a transition from a state of uncertainty to definiteness. A.N. Kolmogorov developed this approach, proposing algorithmic information theory, in which the complexity of an object is determined by the length of the shortest algorithm describing it [32]. A fluctuation, thus, is not merely a physical phenomenon, but an informational process: “noise” carrying potential structure that can be “read” and used for constructing more complex systems.
1.3. The Birth of Matter from Fluctuations
A sufficiently powerful fluctuation capturing different fields can transition from a virtual to a real state. Experiments at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) demonstrate that matter particles can be born from quantum vacuum fluctuations and inherit their properties [20]. In proton collisions at near-light speeds, virtual quark-antiquark pairs from the vacuum transform into real particles.
This means that matter is not fundamental—it is a manifestation of a deeper field reality. The mass, charge, and spin of a particle are properties of the corresponding field “frozen” at the moment of transition from virtual to real state. In the early Universe, this mechanism operated on scales inaccessible to modern experiments: fluctuations of the inflaton field generated all the matter we observe today. Studies of particle production processes after inflation confirm that precisely this mechanism ensured the appearance of matter in the observable Universe [39][40][41].
1.4. Entropy as a Cloud of Possibilities
In statistical physics, entropy is defined as a measure of the number of microstates corresponding to a given macrostate. The higher the entropy, the greater the number of equally probable ways of realizing the system. The metaphor of a “cloud of possibilities” accurately conveys this meaning: entropy is not “disorder” in the everyday understanding, but a space of choice, a field of potential realizations.
The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system tends toward a maximum. This is often interpreted as “inevitable decay into disorder.” But such an interpretation misses the key point: the growth of entropy means the growth of possibilities, not simply the growth of chaos. The Universe does not “degrade”—it expands the space of states.
The key philosophical thesis of the concept: order does not destroy chaos, but structures it. Entropy (possibilities) is preserved but ceases to be uniform—a structure emerges that singles out one state as preferable. This eliminates the false dichotomy of “order versus chaos” and opens a path toward understanding complexity.
Part II. Life as a Gradient
2.1. Prigogine’s Dissipative Structures
Ilya Prigogine, awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977, introduced the concept of dissipative structures to describe systems that: exist far from thermodynamic equilibrium; exchange energy and matter with the surrounding environment; self-organize into ordered structures and maintain their order through the dissipation (scattering) of energy [3]. In equilibrium systems, order is destroyed according to the second law of thermodynamics. But in open systems far from equilibrium, order can arise from chaos through a constant influx of energy.
Classical examples of dissipative structures include:
- Bénard cells—hexagonal convective cells in heated liquid
- The Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction—chemical waves and spiral patterns
- Lasers—coherent radiation from atoms
- Taylor-Couette vortices—toroidal vortices in rotating liquid
All these structures exist only while a flow of energy passes through them.
The philosophical significance of Prigogine’s theory is profound: chaos and randomness are not enemies of order, but its necessary precondition. “Chaos, disorder, randomness are viewed as an objective stage in the process of system development, as a source of order, as a constructive beginning” [9]. Fluctuations in a system far from equilibrium do not dampen but amplify and, through bifurcation points, lead to new ordered states.
Critique of the theory: Prigogine’s theory of dissipative structures has critics. Physicist P. Hohenberg stated: “I do not know of a single phenomenon that his theory has explained” [33]. Nobel laureate P.W. Anderson and D.L. Stein wrote: “We believe that there is no such theory of dissipative structures as proposed by Prigogine and his school” [34]. This does not negate the phenomenon of self-organization (Bénard cells and chemical waves exist experimentally), but questions the universality of the theory’s mathematical apparatus.
2.2. Schrödinger’s Negentropy
Erwin Schrödinger, in his book “What is Life?” (1944), formulated the key concept of negentropy: “A living organism continuously increases its entropy—produces positive entropy—and thus approaches the dangerous state of maximum entropy, which is death. It can avoid this state, that is, remain alive, only by continuously extracting negative entropy from its environment” [4]. Later, Schrödinger clarified that he was referring to free energy, but the term “negentropy” became established in science.
Living systems maintain their high orderliness by absorbing negentropy from the environment and dissipating entropy outward. Prigogine mathematically formalized this idea through the balance equation:
ΔStotal = ΔSinternal + ΔSexternal
where internal entropy production is always positive, but the entropy flux from the environment can be negative. If the outflow of entropy exceeds its internal production, the system increases its orderliness.
In this case, it is logical to define negentropy as passive self-organization—a process in which a system forms order from the environment through trial of variants closest to the aggregate of the system’s components at a given moment, without any assessment regarding the duration of that system’s existence. A living organism does not “decide” to become more complex—evolution and natural selection do this for it. This is a fundamental distinction from anegentropy, which I will define later.
2.3. Emergence and the Complexity of Matter
Philip Anderson, in his famous article “More is Different” (1972), showed that when a large number of elements interact, qualitatively new properties and structures emerge that are absent in individual components [5]. Emergence—”more is different”—operates at all levels of matter organization: from atoms to galaxies, from cells to societies. Ross McKenzie, in the work “Emergence: from physics to biology, sociology, and computer science” (2025), demonstrates the universality of this principle [10].
Ordered structures in condensed matter (superconductors, ferromagnets, crystals), large-scale structures of the Universe, and biological orderliness—all these are manifestations of the microscopic dynamics of elementary components. Topological defects (vortices in superconductors, magnetic domains, dislocations in crystals) arise as inhomogeneous condensation of field quanta.
Complexity is not the sum of the properties of elements, but the result of their interactions. Each new interaction adds a dimension to the “space of possibilities” of the system. Emergence is the mechanism through which this space is structured into qualitatively new forms of organization.
Part III. From Life to Intelligence
3.1. The Hierarchy of Dissipative Systems
Dissipative structures can organize into natural hierarchies, where structures at each level arise from the interaction of structures at the previous level. Corliss (1986) directly uses the concept of a “natural hierarchy of dissipative systems” to describe the creation of living cells in submarine hydrothermal vents [21].
Ulzhofer and co-authors (2021) describe a hierarchy of self-similar dissipative structures, “each of which feeds on dissipative structures of the previous level, as one moves away from the initial driving nonequilibrium” [22]. This is a key mechanism of complexity: each new level builds upon the previous one, consuming it as a resource and creating even more organized structures.
3.2. From Dissipative Structures to Life
Pulselli and co-authors (2009) examine closed lipid vesicles with an internal aqueous medium as a case of self-organization leading to living systems [24]. With a boundary (membrane), energy influx, and entropy outflow, an autopoietic (self-creating) organization arises. These are protocells—a transitional stage between non-living chemistry and living systems.
Mikhailovsky (2020) introduces the concept of “post-dissipative structures”—stable structures created by dissipative ones that can exist without constant energy influx [23]. The appearance of such structures leads to a “ratchet” process that fixes the achieved level of complexity and makes further complexity possible. This explains the irreversibility of evolution.
Michaelian (2017) shows how fundamental molecules of life (purines, nucleotides) form through microscopic dissipative structuring under UV-C radiation [17]. The same Prigogine principles operate at the nanoscale, creating prebiotic structures. Informational systems evolve: from analog (chemical) information through hybrid (RNA world) to digital (DNA) [26].
3.3. The Brain as a Negentropic System
Grande-Garcia (2007) traces the phylogeny of the brain and consciousness from the complexity of negentropic processes in biological systems: “Biological systems appear to violate the Second Law of thermodynamics: organisms maintain themselves in highly organized states because they absorb energy from the environment and process it, producing within themselves a state of low entropy. One could say that biological systems feed on or attract negative entropy (negentropy)” [18]. The brain is a logical continuation of this trajectory.
The human brain is the most complex known structure in the Universe. It contains approximately 86 billion neurons and quadrillions of synaptic connections. The brain consumes about 20% of the body’s energy at 2% of its mass [11]. This is a colossal energetic cost of complexity. At the same time, as recent studies show, the basic maintenance of a complex system requires enormous expenditure, whereas solving specific cognitive tasks can be relatively “cheap” [30]. The infrastructure of complexity is expensive; computations are relatively economical.
Roth (2013), in the monograph “The Long Evolution of Brains and Minds,” collects hypotheses about the driving forces of brain evolution: ecological intelligence (complexity of survival conditions), social intelligence (complexity of social interactions), physical intelligence (tool-making), general intelligence (increased information processing speed). All converge on one point: the brain became more complex as an information-processing system in response to growing environmental complexity [27]. Further increase in complexity encounters rigid physical limitations. The organism’s energy budget is already exhausted: the brain consumes 20% of resources at 2% of mass, and further growth requires either an unattainable increase in metabolism or a fatal redistribution of energy to the detriment of other systems [11][44]. Equally insurmountable are architectural limitations—the speed of nerve impulse conduction (no more than 120 m/s), cranial volume, and neuron packing density create a physical ceiling for increasing computational power [42][43]. Finally, an evolutionary limit is in effect: the genetic information determining brain architecture can change only at an extraordinarily low rate (fractions of a bit per generation), making the emergence of fundamentally new neural structures impossible within observable evolutionary time [45].
This is the limit of negentropy—the maximum complexity achievable through passive self-organization of matter.
Part IV. Anegentropy
4.1. The Limits of Biological Intelligence
The brain is physically limited: skull size, energy consumption, neuron speed, lifespan. It cannot grow indefinitely. But the potential for complexity is not negated by these limits—it requires a new substrate. Hazen (1992) shows that the evolution of intelligence proceeds through a stepwise synthesis of information, where “life and intelligence are not fluctuations directed against the growth of entropy, but arise as a natural consequence of the spontaneous process of entropy development” [12]. This means that intelligence is not an anomaly, but a natural stage in the evolution of the Universe.
Pissanetzky and Lanzalaco (2014) propose a theory of Causal Mathematical Logic that “links intelligence to causality and entropy and explains intelligent behavior from first principles.” Importantly: “any device that processes information and exhibits intelligence must satisfy certain theoretical conditions, regardless of the substrate on which it is processed. The substrate can be a human brain, its part, a worm’s brain, a motor protein that moves in response to the environment, a computer” [28]. Intelligence can be studied independently of biological substrate.
4.2. Artificial Intelligence as a Neoneocortex
In evolution, new brain structures did not replace old ones but were superimposed upon them: reptilian brain (basic instincts) → limbic system (emotions) → neocortex (rational thinking). The next layer is artificial intelligence. This is not a replacement or a competitor, but an externalized information-processing organ that enables solving tasks impossible for the biological brain alone.
It is logical to call it the “neoneocortex”—a superstructure above the neocortex performing functions that the biological brain cannot fulfill due to physical limitations: processing super-large volumes of data, identifying long-term correlations, modeling complex systems, forecasting on time scales inaccessible to individual human experience.
4.3. Definition of Anegentropy
Anegentropy (from Gk. ἀνά—”up, above” + entropy) is the process of conscious, purposeful ordering of entropy by an intelligent system (creating a gradient of possibilities). Unlike negentropy (passive self-organization), anegentropy includes:
- Modeling of consequences—the ability to calculate the results of actions before committing them
- Selection of the optimal path—conscious determination of the best strategy from multiple possible ones
- Purposeful action—realization of the chosen strategy with a predetermined goal
If negentropy is how an organism “feeds” on order from the environment (passively, according to the laws of natural selection), then anegentropy is how intelligence consciously creates a gradient of possibilities (actively, according to the laws of goal-setting). Humanity has already entered the anegentropic era with the creation of AI.
4.4. Tactical and Strategic Survival
Survival has two aspects:
- Tactical survival—responding to threats “here and now.” It requires immediate complexity increase to solve current problems.
- Strategic survival—minimizing the number of parameters that in the future could lead the system to collapse. The fewer such parameters remain in the zone of uncertainty, the more controllable or eliminated they are, the more stable the system in the long term.
Intelligence is unique in its ability to model the future. It can identify threats before they manifest and select actions that minimize long-term risks. But the volume of information necessary for strategic survival on a global scale grows exponentially. Jensen and co-authors (2016) show: “The phase space volume can grow superexponentially with the number of degrees of freedom for certain types of complex systems” [15]. The biological brain cannot handle such volume—hence the necessity of AI.
4.5. The Energy Imperative
Maintaining a complex intelligent system requires colossal baseline energy expenditure. With exponential growth in task complexity, total energy needs inevitably exceed the limits available from planetary resources. The only strategy for long-term survival is expansion into space and mastery of direct matter-to-energy conversion (E=mc²) on scales that enable sustaining further complexity growth.
The Dyson Sphere [13]—a hypothetical megastructure surrounding a star and capturing all its energy—is only the first step. The Kardashev Scale [14] defines civilizations by energy consumption: Type I—planetary, Type II—stellar, Type III—galactic. But energy is only a means. The true goal of intelligence in the long term is the complete ordering of matter—transforming all available substance into an optimal information-computing structure.
Part V. The Cosmological Cycle
5.1. Black Holes as Archivers
A black hole is not a grave of information, but its maximally dense archive. Hawking Radiation [7]—a process predicted by Stephen Hawking in which black holes emit thermal radiation and gradually lose mass. All information about absorbed matter is preserved on the event horizon according to the holographic principle proposed by Gerard ‘t Hooft [8]. The holographic principle asserts that all information about a three-dimensional volume can be encoded on its two-dimensional boundary.
We consider a black hole as an ultimate “archiver”—a structure that functions similarly to a zip archive: it retains only the registration of interactions, terminating the interactions themselves beyond the event horizon, ensuring complete “safety” from external matter. A black hole’s entropy is proportional to the area of its event horizon—this is the maximally compact form of information storage.
5.2. From Singularity to a New Cycle
[Speculative section] When a black hole absorbs all the matter of the Universe, only it remains. Then internal optimization begins: removal of duplicate information, compression, reduction of distances. As compression proceeds, the concepts of space and time lose meaning. The black hole tends toward a state of maximum stability—the point of singularity.
The state of a point is an unstable equilibrium. A quantum fluctuation inevitably disrupts the system from equilibrium. At this moment, a new parameter emerges that did not exist in the previous cycle. This parameter defines new constants and new fields for the next Universe. Possible models include: loop quantum gravity, M-theory, cyclic cosmological scenarios.
5.3. The Role of the Observer
John Wheeler expressed the idea of the observer’s role in the aphorism “It from bit”—”everything from a bit” [19], emphasizing the fundamentality of information. In quantum mechanics, the act of measurement (registration) plays a key role in the transition from “possible” to “actual.”
It is important to note that the role of the observer in quantum mechanics is a subject of ongoing debate. The Copenhagen interpretation [16] links the collapse of the wave function to the act of observation, but does not require a conscious observer—a physical registration process is sufficient. Alternative interpretations exist:
- Decoherence theory (W. Zurek) explains the transition from quantum superposition to classical state through the system’s interaction with the environment, without the need for an observer [35]. Decoherence shows how quantum information “leaks” into the surroundings, making superpositions unobservable at the macroscopic level.
- Many-worlds interpretation (H. Everett) asserts that all possible outcomes of quantum measurement are realized in different branches of reality [36].
- Bohmian interpretation postulates the existence of hidden variables and a guiding wave determining particle behavior [37].
[Speculative section] In our iteration of the Universe, the “new parameter” could have been the observer. The very existence of physical laws requiring measurement for actualization indicates that the observer is built into the structure of reality. This principle allows the logic of the Universe to exist as an eternal structure through constant complexity growth. Complexity at this level occurs through the emergence of new fields of interaction. However, this assertion remains a philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific fact.
Part VI. The Ethics of Anegentropy
6.1. The Main Enemy—Chaos
People wage war against one another, not noticing the common enemy—entropy, chaos, the disintegration of structures. Any war between people is cataentropy: the destruction of complex systems without subsequent complexity growth. The human brain is the pinnacle of negentropy in our part of the Universe. Every brain is unique; every one stores an unrepeatable archive of interactions with the world. The destruction of a brain is a loss of information that nothing can replace.
6.2. Anegentropic Ethics
That which leads to is effective (moral):
- Complexity of systems—increasing the density of interactions
- Creation of new gradients—structuring the space of possibilities
- Preservation and development of intelligence—accumulation and processing of information
- Minimization of risk parameters—strategic assurance of stability
That which leads to is ineffective (immoral): simplification and decay, destruction of information, growth of chaos without subsequent order, cataentropy (destruction without creation).
6.3. Unity Through Physics
Everyone is right: the scientist describing fields; the theologian speaking of spirit; the businessman creating structure from market chaos; the artist ordering paints on a canvas; the shelf-stacker arranging goods in a warehouse. All are engaged in one thing: archiving matter, transforming the noise of possibilities into stable order. The difference lies only in language and scale.
Limitations and Counterarguments
Prigogine’s theory of dissipative structures has critics. Physicist P. Hohenberg: “I do not know of a single phenomenon that his theory has explained” [33]. Nobel laureate P.W. Anderson and D.L. Stein: “We believe that there is no such theory of dissipative structures as proposed by Prigogine and his school” [34]. This does not negate the phenomenon of self-organization (Bénard cells and chemical waves exist experimentally), but questions the universality of the theory.
The role of the observer in quantum mechanics is a subject of ongoing debate. The Copenhagen interpretation is not universally accepted; alternatives exist (many-worlds interpretation, decoherence theory, Bohmian interpretation). The assertion that “the observer is built into the structure of reality” remains speculative.
The cosmological part of the concept (black holes as archivers, cyclic Universes) relies on theoretical models that do not yet have experimental confirmation. This is a philosophical generalization, not a scientific fact.
Conclusion
The Universe does not wage war against itself. It grows more complex through fluctuations, through life, through intelligence. We are not accidental guests in this process. We are its agents.
Our enemy is not our neighbor, not someone of a different faith, not a foreign culture. Our enemy is chaos, entropy, decay. Our weapon is order, structure, gradient. Our goal is not destruction, but archiving.
Humanity stands on the threshold of the anegentropic era. We have a tool—AI as a neoneocortex. We have a goal—the complete ordering of accessible reality. We have understanding—we are all engaged in the same work.
The only question is whether we will realize this quickly enough to stop hindering one another and begin helping.
References
NOTE: All external links open in a new tab. Internal reference numbers [1]-[45] link to this section.
[1] Hobson, A. (2013). There are no particles, there are only fields. American Journal of Physics, 81(3), 211-223. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4789885
[2] Weinberg, S. (1977). The Search for Unity: Notes for a History of Quantum Field Theory. Daedalus, 106(4), 17-35.
[3] Prigogine, I. (1977). Nobel Lecture: Time, Structure and Fluctuations. Nobel Prize Committee. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1977/prigogine/lecture/
[4] Schrödinger, E. (1944). What is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell. Cambridge University Press.
[5] Anderson, P.W. (1972). More Is Different: Broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science. Science, 177(4047), 393-396. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.177.4047.393
[6] Lamoreaux, S.K. (1997). Demonstration of the Casimir Force in the 0.6 to 6 μm Range. Physical Review Letters, 78(1), 5-8. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.5
[7] Hawking, S.W. (1975). Particle Creation by Black Holes. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 43(3), 199-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02345020
[8] ‘t Hooft, G. (1993). Dimensional Reduction in Quantum Gravity. arXiv:gr-qc/9310026. https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9310026
[9] Baboskoy, V.G. et al. (2015). Dissipative structures in physics, chemistry, biology. Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk.
[10] McKenzie, R. (2025). Emergence: from physics to biology, sociology, and computer science. European Physical Journal Special Topics. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjs/s11734-025-01501-x
[11] Raichle, M.E., & Gusnard, D.A. (2002). Appraising the brain’s energy budget. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(16), 10237-10239. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.172399499
[12] Hazen, R.M. (1992). Life and intelligence as a global emergent property of the evolution of the universe. Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 45, 235-240.
[13] Dyson, F.J. (1960). Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radiation. Science, 131(3414), 1667-1668. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.131.3414.1667
[14] Kardashev, N.S. (1964). Transmission of Information by Extraterrestrial Civilizations. Soviet Astronomy, 8(2), 217-221.
[15] Jensen, H.J., Pazuki, B.H., Pruitt, J., et al. (2016). The exponential state space of complex systems. Advances in Complex Systems, 19(3), 1650005. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219525916500056
[16] Bohr, N. (1928). The Quantum Postulate and the Recent Development of Atomic Theory. Nature, 121, 580-590. https://doi.org/10.1038/121580a0
[17] Michaelian, K. (2017). Microscopic dissipative structuring at the origin of life. Biophysics, 12(3), 359-385.
[18] Grande-Garcia, I. (2007). The phylogeny of brain and consciousness. Neuroscience, 148, 2-15.
[19] Wheeler, J.A. (1990). Information, physics, quantum: The search for links. In W.H. Zurek (Ed.), Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (pp. 3-28). Addison-Wesley.
[20] STAR Collaboration (2021). Observation of the antimatter hyperhelium-4 nucleus. Nature, 627, 688-693. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07094-0
[21] Corliss, J.B. et al. (1986). Biological communities at hydrothermal vents. Oceanologica Acta, 8, 59-66.
[22] Ulzhofer, C.S. et al. (2021). Dissipative structures and the origins of life. Physics of Life Reviews, 38, 1-25.
[23] Mikhailovsky, G. (2020). Post-dissipative structures and the ratchet of evolution. Entropy, 22(11), 1234.
[24] Pulselli, R.M. et al. (2009). Dissipative structures and the origin of life. International Journal of Thermodynamics, 12(1), 37-44.
[25] Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order Out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature. Bantam Books.
[26] Yarus, M. (2010). Life from an RNA World: The Ancestor Within. Harvard University Press.
[27] Roth, G. (2013). The Long Evolution of Brains and Minds. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6259-6
[28] Pissanetzky, S., & Lanzalaco, L. (2014). Causal Mathematical Logic: A new theory of intelligence. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 29(10), 927-949. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.21669
[29] Holland, J.H. (1998). Emergence: From Chaos to Order. Oxford University Press.
[30] Kondrakiewicz, K. et al. (2025). Brains are expensive, but cognition is often cheap. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 158, 105478. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149763425004518
[31] Shannon, C.E. (1948). A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
[32] Kolmogorov, A.N. (1965). Three approaches to the quantitative definition of information. Problems of Information Transmission, 1(1), 1-7.
[33] Hohenberg, P.C. (1988). Discussion of Prigogine’s theory of dissipative structures. In From Theoretical Physics to Biology. Karger.
[34] Anderson, P.W., & Stein, D.L. (1983). Broken symmetry, dissipative structures, and the problem of scale. In Self-Organizing Systems: The Emergence of Order. Plenum Press.
[35] Zurek, W.H. (2003). Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75(3), 715-775. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.75.715
[36] Everett, H. (1957). “Relative State” Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29(3), 454-462. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454
[37] Bohm, D. (1952). A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of “Hidden” Variables. Physical Review, 85(2), 166-193. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.85.166
[38] Gevorkyan, A.S. (2019). Quantum Vacuum: The Structure of Empty Space–Time and Quintessence with Gauge Symmetry Group SU(2) ⊗ U(1). Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1390(1), 012079. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1390/1/012079
[39] García-Bellido, J., & Ruiz-Morales, E. (2002). Particle production from symmetry breaking after inflation and leptogenesis. Physics Letters B, 536(3-4), 193-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(02)01840-8
[40] Fujisaki, H., Kumekawa, K., Yoshimura, M., & Yamaguchi, M. (1996). Particle production and gravitino abundance after inflation. Physical Review D, 54(4), 2494-2503. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.54.2494
[41] Xue, S.S. (2020). Cosmological Λ driven inflation and produced particles. arXiv:1910.03938 [gr-qc]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.03938
[42] Hofman, M.A. (2001). Brain evolution in hominids: are we at the end of the road? In D. Falk & K.R. Gibson (Eds.), Evolutionary Anatomy of the Primate Cerebral Cortex (pp. 99-120). Cambridge University Press. Link to Cambridge
[43] Usrey, W.M., & Sherman, S.M. (2021). Evolutionary constraints on attention: why we can’t focus on everything at once. Neuron, 109(14), 2221-2223. Link to UChicago
[44] Fonseca-Azevedo, K., & Herculano-Houzel, S. (2012). Metabolic constraint imposes tradeoff between body size and number of brain neurons in human evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(45), 18571-18576. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1206390109
[45] Worden, R.P. (1995). A speed limit for evolution. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 176(1), 137-152. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7475097/
© 2026 | Anegentropy Manifesto
