I'm not sure there will ever be a synthesis of all these things that creates a paradigm of some sort. There's simply too much.
I'm not sure there will ever be a synthesis of all these things that creates a paradigm of some sort. There's simply too much.
Consider complexity economics, computational social sciences, network sciences and cascading networks, evolutionary theories, parts of systems biology, connectomics and computational neuroscience etc.
The Santa Fe institute has been at the forefront and has an amazing collections of publications in their own press. David krakaeur's book "Worlds Hidden in Plain Sight: The Evolving Idea of Complexity at the Santa Fe Institute" is like a 20 year survey paper and an amazing read.
BTW these books were up on amazon India for like $10-$15 each (books with slight printing defects were being dumped in the 3rd world) so I lapped up the entire collection :P
https://fab.cba.mit.edu/classes/863.18/notes/computation/Szi...
Szilard seems to have been involved in everything.
Depends on whose expectations you are trying to meet.
To some it would be a major transition, to others it's just another everyday minor non-event in the very macro scheme of things.
If you're going to look at it mathematically it probably makes a difference when the number of non-extreme planetary environments begins to become significant compared to the number of possible chemical reactions among the limited number of elements in nature.
Only one of these numbers can reach truly astronomical proportions.