Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Universal Darwinism

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    106

    Universal Darwinism

    Universal Darwinism

    All things Darwinian

    Any entity that exists via exploitation of an energy, can conceivably evolve its form and functions to a highly ordered complex state optimized for exploiting that energy. This summarizes life's circumstances very nicely.

    And if you assume space possesses an energy content that Baryon matter "atoms" exploit, then you can test the idea that the forms and processes of matter are an evolved state optimized for harvesting that energy.

    Biological activity owes its origin to sunlight "a freely available energy of the environment in which plants have evolved and optimized the process of Photosynthesis to exploit.

    Consider the possibility that atomic activity owes its origin to an energy field that inhabits the environment of space, and that Baryons "atoms" have evolved an optimized process to exploit this energy source (we might term fieldsynthesis). Atoms exploit and convert space into atomic force. Atomic forces that are the generator of atomic activity. We do after all use atomic activity to define atomic time. So atomic force and atomic time are certainly intimately related, and therefore so is the concept of spacetime.

    Spacetime curvature = atomic time = atomic activity = atomic force. Because atomic forces generate the atomic activity we use to define the measure of time. Direct causal relationship.


    Defer to a tried and tested means that nature has at its disposal to generate highly ordered complex systems, (Darwinian progression). Anybody who has studied the complexity problem of science, and or the fine-tuning problem will recognize the potential benefits of discovering a "natural organizational principle is responsible for generating universal physical complexity and order.

    So here is an avenue for inquiry. This outlines a scenario within which Darwinian mechanisms are given ample opportunity to act as an organizational principle responsible for sculpting atomic and cosmological forms and processes.


    Scientist know why living cells service specialized roles within terms of forms and functions for the benefit of multicellular organisms. Because the fates of cells and the bodies they form are intertwined in a Darwinian circumstance of adaptation, optimization in the bid to persist.

    But what scientists dont know is why hydrogen fusion sensitivity generates just the right amount of heat within stars to balance against the force of gravity to halt gravitational collapse. But while not being overly sensitive triggering a nova event. This raises the question of finely tuned calibration? Why do processes at atomic scales service structural mechanisms that service cosmological scales?

    The hypothesis outlined above presents the same opportunity to service the question of fusions ideal sensitivity for maintaining stellar structure, as it does biologies relationship between Cells and an organisms multicellular body. Atoms fates are intertwined with stellar structures and processes within a circumstance of Darwinian progression, evolution and refined optimization.

    All these considerations are made posable within a cosmological model which assumes space is a habitat that possesses an energy content. And that the Baryon universe (atoms and the cosmological bodies that atoms form) exist on the basis of exploiting this naturally available energy of space. That universal complexity and order is a result of evolution and refined optimization.

    That life examples an extraordinary Darwinian existence which extends to a far broader universal scope. Universal Darwinism


    Any Darwinian entity can be understood within terms of the energy it exploits to exist, and its evolved form and functions optimized for exploiting that energy source.

    Take a tree for example. Its form and processes can be understood within terms of evolving (Lignin fibers) that is to say wood fibers. Which it used to good effect in the competition for sunlight. A strong truck enabled the tree to lift its bulk above competing plants and then spread its branches and leaf canopy wide, increasing its surface area and ability to collect the suns energy. So the theme of structure and process is apparent in the trees truck and branch form and photosynthesis process. Forms and functions. Structures and processes.

    So if you begin from the standpoint that atoms exist on the basis of exploiting an energy of space habitat. That atoms evolved collective agencies that form stable cosmological bodies, presumably for the same general reason that cells eventually evolved multicellular bodies. In any case life offers precedence to be weighed as evidence that Darwinian systems are inclined to do such things. So now ill get to the point. As living things, we owe a great debt to chemical bond forming potentials of atoms and the presents of water molecules that act as a universal solvent in the expression of these chemical potentials. Life didn't invent chemical potentials, it only coopted or borrowed pre-existing potentials of matter. Question is, why and how did atoms achieve such an incredible and complex system of chemistry?

    Let us look to the Earth's geochemical processes and see how geology makes use of chemical bonds, and the substance of water which just happens to be found in abundance in this universe and on Earth's surface. I see Earth's geochemical processes making use of chemical bonds while cementing eroded sandy and rocky aggregates, resolidifying rock sheets that span the width of continents. I see the Earth's surface being resolidified into ridged and therefore persistent structure by geochemical means enabled by the presents of water. Not to mention some heat and pressure within the Earth's crust.

    Chemical potentials of matter would lay largely dormant on Earth if not for the presents of the universal solvent of water. What are the odds that nature would create wonderous chemical potentials quite by accident, and then again by mere accident create a very particular substance requires to activate those chemical potentials? They work together with an elegance that a lock fits a key. How can we take those seriously unlikely circumstances for granted?

    So I see a highly energetic and kinetic universe that bombards and erodes planet surfaces, and I see repair mechanisms that act to resolidify this ware and tear. Much like your skin repairs itself, so do planetary crusts.

    The idea is that these extraordinary processes of nature, chemical bonds and water's means of expressing them in a meaningful useful way, evolved for natural reasons that can be fathomed by science. Reasons that we observe nature in the act of doing, like geochemical structure formation. Within context of an entity's exploitation of an energy source, and its evolved structures and processes optimized for exploiting that energy while achieving stable persistent universal structures. In this fashion, it can be fathomed how the universe achieved highly ordered complex states, structures and processes, which having achieved a high enough threshold of chemical sufistication, that only then did life became an emergent potential.

    We know how life generated its complexity. Darwinian progression. But science is hung up on the question of how matter came to possess the characteristics and complexity that life depends upon to exist. I'm strongly suggesting that universal complexity owes to the same general circumstances of lifes emergent complexity. Darwinian progression.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,241
    Darwinism expresses procreation within an environment for short lived organisms (all life) especially in changing environments. It includes random mutation, where some confer advantage. Using energy is a given. Evolution of life is therefore a great working hypothesis. (Hard to rerun the experiment). Evolution of long lived entities, I think, requires a different hypothesis, maybe involving better use of energy as you suggest, but I think to use Darwin is to unnecessarily stretch a specific idea.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Darwinism expresses procreation within an environment for short lived organisms (all life) especially in changing environments. It includes random mutation, where some confer advantage. Using energy is a given. Evolution of life is therefore a great working hypothesis. (Hard to rerun the experiment). Evolution of long lived entities, I think, requires a different hypothesis, maybe involving better use of energy as you suggest, but I think to use Darwin is to unnecessarily stretch a specific idea.
    Thanks for the message. This hypothesis might demand you second guess some of your prior held notions. This is a cosmological model that extends its own circumstances and method of creation. Some of your thinking might be a legacy of Big Bang theory, that is not relevant to this hypothesis. Like how you might think all universal material was created at the same moment, and possesses the same age.

    The LHC shows us that all you need is two collided particles and enough kinetic energy and you end up with more matter than the sum of what was originally collided. Thats matter creation. We can achieve matter creation in our labs, so think what nature and its awesome machinery can achieve? Block holes are particle accelerators on cosmological scales and energies. Why cant they serve as natures creation engine? If block hole accretion disks do forge new matter, hydrogen for example, then they also possess jets that can transport this new material away from the black hole, seeding space with the potential to form new galaxies or regenerate the old.

    I know conventional theory holds that matter is conserved within the universe. But if all you need is two particles accelerated and then collided to generate additional matter, then black holes offer a theoretically infinite sum of kinetic energy to add to the universal equation. I mean what theoretical limit is there for a black holes ability to accelerate matter? Its never runs out of pull

    And why cant the collided particles share their hereditary with the newly forged matter? As parents share DNA coding with offspring? Matters properties might be coded and hereditary in a similar regard
    Last edited by Presocratics; 2020-Apr-23 at 11:23 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Darwinism expresses procreation within an environment for short lived organisms (all life) especially in changing environments. It includes random mutation, where some confer advantage. Using energy is a given. Evolution of life is therefore a great working hypothesis. (Hard to rerun the experiment). Evolution of long lived entities, I think, requires a different hypothesis, maybe involving better use of energy as you suggest, but I think to use Darwin is to unnecessarily stretch a specific idea.
    Even Lightening has the energies required to forge new matter. You probably already knew, they discovered lightning gives off gamma radiation. On further inquiry they discovered that its generating electron-positron pairs, and in the moments after the strike the positron drifted around in the atmosphere untill if found an electron to annihilate and give off gamma.

    So think about whats happening here? There's matter creation, a new electron is created that will carry on living, so to speak. Mean while a positron was also created thats going to live a short life, and kill or destroy a hapless electron that found itself in the wrong place at the wrong time, in the process. An electron that had existed for perhaps a long time before this event, and then it is no more. Conceivably this process having occurred enough times the atmospheres population of electrons might be completely regenerated, replaced. This is population regeneration, surprisingly similar to the regeneration of organism populations. Or even the continual cycling regeneration of cells throughout the lifetime of a living body.

    I'm just speaking loosely, but hopefully you'll concede an interesting possibility and point. Matter creation and destruction is an observed function of the world. And nature has the cosmological energies required to justify some interesting speculations
    Last edited by Presocratics; 2020-Apr-23 at 11:44 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    9,032
    Presocrates, some remarks and questions. When high-energy photons are transformed into matter, it is in particle-antiparticle pairs. If I am not mistaken, the new normal particle will take its place among the existing ones, but the antiparticle will eventually annihilate something and revert to gamma photons, leaving no net increase in the amount of matter.

    There is well-observed evolution in the cosmos, lots of it, but I don't see it as an analogy to the sort of biological evolution described by Darwin and his successor biologists. There we have organisms producing offspring with variation that enables natural selection. The fundamental particles are continually combined and dissociated in and out of changing combinations, but the particles themselves do not change. How, in principle, would you test your idea? Where would you look for forensic evidence analogous to fossils on Planet Earth, and what would you look for?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,241
    The test of presocrates idea is to ask what predictive value the idea has. Does it change the model? Does it suggest experiments?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    Presocrates, some remarks and questions. When high-energy photons are transformed into matter, it is in particle-antiparticle pairs. If I am not mistaken, the new normal particle will take its place among the existing ones, but the antiparticle will eventually annihilate something and revert to gamma photons, leaving no net increase in the amount of matter.
    Thats a fair comment. This observation is limited to an example of a particle population being continually regenerated, swapped out for new. Not a net increase in matter creation. I'm just demonstrating an interesting tendency that matter displays.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    There is well-observed evolution in the cosmos, lots of it, but I don't see it as an analogy to the sort of biological evolution described by Darwin and his successor biologists. There we have organisms producing offspring with variation that enables natural selection. The fundamental particles are continually combined and dissociated in and out of changing combinations, but the particles themselves do not change. How, in principle, would you test your idea? Where would you look for forensic evidence analogous to fossils on Planet Earth, and what would you look for?
    I am strictly speaking within terms of Darwinian evolution, like the hereditary component which can accumulate throughout successive generations and eventuate a highly ordered and complex system. Like biology. Not the deterministic evolution that is currently applied to universal structures, for which the laws of physics are believed to have been fashioned in the microsecond of the Big Bang, and then all other processes of the universe after this point are considered predetermined by those set laws. I'm suggesting the laws evolved over time and the ordered complexity of the world as we observe around us is a product of steadily evolving laws. Which governs the properties and characteristics of matter.

    How do we test the idea? There are countless ways

    We might characterize a known example of Darwinian emergence, and see if Physics and cosmology share any parallels? Biology formed cells and their internal structures and processes, then cells evolved collagen bonds that enabled animals to multicellular bodies to evolve. A description that typifies this circumstance might be "nested complexities" like Russian dolls. Layer upon layer of structures upon substructures upon yet more substructures nested within one another, each layer expressing structures and processes for which each successive layer is dependant upon. This description is representative of life's circumstances.

    What of physics and cosmology, is it representative of the same general or explicit characteristics? Quarks and their binding characteristics that form protons and neutrons and their bonding characteristics that form atomic nuclei, that capture electrons which then serve the binding mechanism of atoms that build molecular bodies such as rocks and ices. The chemical processes that conspire to activate these bonding . These circumstances provide more than a superficial comparitive with biology. It is entirly justified by the same set of descriptions. "nested complexities" like Russian dolls. Layer upon layer of structures upon substructures upon yet more substructures nested within one another, each layer expressing structures and processes for which each successive layer is dependant.

    Both physics and biology are made up of units that express processes that build composite bodies. The difference being that science knows how biology achieved such a complex and highly ordered set of nested and interdependent systems. And science doesn't know how Physics achieved the same set of general characteristics.

    Another test might be to ask. If Baryons are awash in space within a body of universal energy and they benefit its exploitation, then is there an interpretation that extends a logic towards the structures and processes we observe the universe engaging in? The study of biology exemplifies this approach, so does physics and cosmology yield something comparable? Yes, it transcends two vastly different scales, both atomic scales and cosmological. I've already described some of these, how steller structures are dependant upon atomic fusion sensitivity. Or how geochemical processes conspire to build durable planetary crusts. Its all about structures and the processes that motivate and maintain those structures. The description terms of structure and processes do biology a great justice, within terms of the energy an organism exploits and its form and processes that have evolved to build and maintain those optimized forms.

    Ask yourself, what does it look like if atoms are exploiting space for its energy content and converting it into atomic force, that in turn generates the atomic activity we employ to derive measure of atomic time. Connecting atomic force and atomic time. That atomic forces animate the world, and time is but a measure of that force generated activity. Can you see how this concept might correspond to the concept of spacetime? Furthermore, that Baryons have evolved highly ordered complex forms and processes optimized for exploiting the energy upon which they depend upon to exist. In the same general way biology depends upon available energy. That matters systems were lifted to these great heights of complexity for knowable reasons, and that having achieved such extraordinary interactive complexity that life only then became a possibility. That atomic structures and chemical processes evolved to build stable and persistent cosmological bodies, as we observe geochemistry in the act of doing.

    this is what evidence looks like. These are all conceptual tests

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,311
    None of these 'conceptual tests' are tests in the scientific sense. They are simply you saying "I think A looks like B, therefore A is B". Applying this approach the nebula W50 has the same outline as a manatee, therefore it is a space manatee.

    You have stated that for this to work physical laws need to evolve steadily over time. Showing that there is evidence of this and that the changes resulted in a greater efficiency in exploiting universal energy would be getting closer to an actual test. While you are at it you should probably formally define what exploiting universal energy efficiently looks like and what universal energy is first.

    You initial post also contained a number of examples of reversed logic. "scientists dont know is why hydrogen fusion sensitivity generates just the right amount of heat within stars to balance against the force of gravity to halt gravitational collapse. But while not being overly sensitive triggering a nova event. This raises the question of finely tuned calibration? Why do processes at atomic scales service structural mechanisms that service cosmological scales?" is rather like asking why water has exactly the right density variation with temperature to make icebergs float. Or why the rainfall in Cambridgeshire is exactly the right amount to fill the River Ouse. You are taking the outcome of a natural process and ascribing special significance to it, then asking why this special case is happening. You might as well ask why fusion is so badly tuned that it doesn't make brown dwarf stars ignite. Or why it is so badly tuned that Wolf Rayet stars don't last longer.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    106
    Imagine Earths seas filled with early life, single-cells exploiting the suns rays for their energy. At some point, a collection of those single cells lost its apatite for sun rays and it turned its attention to exploiting other living cells for their energy content. The hapless victims in this scenario had already performed the work of converting the sunlight into sugars, the sugars possessing the chemical energy to power cells, so why care about sunlight when you can rob another cell of its sugar? Fast forward a few hundred million years and you end up with an ecosystem of complex plants and plant-eating animals. Each Darwinian evolved form and processes optimized to exploit their prefered energy content.

    So envision this.
    First to emerge from and within space is a regenerating energy field. Where it came from or how it regenerates, I dont know. But we presume it exploits some type of natural energy potential of the vacuum/void to proliferate itself. Let us coin this process as "field-synthesis". So now like Earths early seas we have a population of sorts living its existence based upon an energy exploitation. But a collection of those same field units/quanta loses its apatite for "field-synthesis, instead turning its attention to the exploitation of its relatives for their energy content. Fast forward an untold span of time and you end up with an ecosystem of sorts made up of Auv space field, and Tuv matter fields that specialize in exploiting space fields. Each Darwinian evolved form and processes optimized to exploit their prefered energy content.

    I guess this probably sounds like its a joke

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    None of these 'conceptual tests' are tests in the scientific sense. .
    What constitutes as a test of a Darwinian hypothesis? I suggest Charles did a good job of pioneering those methods and they are strictly scientific.

    Comparisons speak to precedence. Are there compelling parallels between the characteristics of biological systems, atomic and cosmological systems? Yes

    Darwinian systems have a propensity for generating nested layered yet interdependent complex systems. Really, a manatee shaped nebula? Thats what you think this comparative is worth? Lucky my arguments are not limited to this degree then
    Last edited by Presocratics; 2020-Apr-26 at 11:15 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Presocratics View Post
    What constitutes as a test of a Darwinian hypothesis? I suggest Charles did a good job of pioneering those methods and they are strictly scientific.
    I mentioned a route to one. So far you have not demonstrated that the key conditions are present to even allow a form of Darwinian evolution. Let alone provided enough detail to actually test it. You're pretty much spinning stories based on what you believe you are seeing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Presocratics View Post
    Comparisons speak to precedence. Are there compelling parallels between the characteristics of biological systems, atomic and cosmological systems? Yes
    Not really. So show me why, in detail, these systems are homologous. All you've done so far is a series of pencil sketches - and I don't really agree with the conclusions you draw from them. Show me the process mappings or the impossible structures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Presocratics View Post
    Darwinian systems have a propensity for generating nested layered yet interdependent complex systems. Really, a manatee shaped nebula? That's what you think this comparative is worth? Lucky my arguments are not limited to this degree then
    Yup, That is all your comparison is worth so far. Let's see. Chaotic systems, turbulence, iterative systems - these are all non-Darwinian systems that produce the same nested, layered, interdependent complex systems. I'm sure you are going to say that they don't have the right kind of complexity but the universe does. Well, I disagree. So show me, in appropriate detail, that I am wrong. Show me an aspect of the universe that can only be explained by evolutionary processes. Or show me that the ecosystem for them to happen is there and there is evidence that the processes are happening.

    And don't try to do this by arguing that A looks like B to you, which is all you have done so far. In fact you've probably done worse than that. You are actually arguing that your impression of a carefully selected subset of attributes of A look like your impressions of a carefully selected subset of B. Next to that kind of selective and descriptive approach space manatees are relatively feasible.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Chaotic systems, turbulence, iterative systems - these are all non-Darwinian systems that produce the same nested, layered, interdependent complex systems. I'm sure you are going to say that they don't have the right kind of complexity.
    You're right, thats what im going to say. Chaotic systems, turbulence, iterative systems are nothing like the example I gave of system fine-tuning. Fusion sensitivity being remarkably fortuitous in for stellar structure and function. Your intent on arguing, but just havent had time to form a good argument yet. I know youre capable of better.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Presocratics View Post
    Your intent on arguing, but just havent had time to form a good argument yet. I know youre capable of better.
    I'm really not intent on arguing, certainly not in this manner. I've asked you to provide a scientific hypothesis, which you have not - instead choosing to try to push the discussion back into this "A looks like B" stuff and personal judgements you've been throwing out there.

    So to demonstrate my lack of intent in continuing pointless arguments I'll duck out until you present something scientific instead of increasingly baroque just-so-stories.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    I've asked you to provide a scientific hypothesis, which you have not .
    I kind of have.

    Dont you think atoms are rather special? Biology is entirely dependent upon their properties and behaviors, which it uses to remarkable effect. Atomic processes are implicated with consciousness. Does that not qualify a measure of special? Are these not a useful measure of how extraordinary atoms are? Sure, if there is no determinable explanation then so be it, but how will you know if not for trying ideas? Big Bang theory doesnt extend any obvious explanations for why matter would achieve any particular charactoristic, or extend reason for anything in particular actually. Arent you concerned of being too conservative? Would it require anything less than radical to explain for universal complexity?

    The simple facts are that biology demonstrates Darwinian processes are rather an amazing natural organizational principle, and matters systems do express some rather distinct parallels with biological systems. You insist that these observations and deductions are not of any scientific value even while they are fair and justified.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    13,476
    Closed pending moderator discussion.

    Edit to add:

    The thread will remain closed. The ATM forum is not the place for unsupported speculation, spitballing, or story telling.
    Last edited by PetersCreek; 2020-Apr-28 at 02:49 PM.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •