Biocosm: The New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life is the Architect of the Universe

Printable Version

by	James N. Gardner

James N. Gardner's Selfish Biocosm hypothesis proposes that the remarkable anthropic (life-friendly) qualities that our universe exhibits can be explained as incidental consequences of a cosmic replication cycle in which a cosmologically extended biosphere provides a means for the cosmos to produce one or more baby universes. The cosmos is "selfish" in the same sense that Richard Dawkins proposed that genes are focused on their own replication.

Excerpted from Biocosm, Inner Ocean Publishing, August 2003. Published on KurzweilAI.net August 26, 2003.

Introduction

This book presents a new theory about the role of life and mind in shaping the origin and ultimate fate of the universe. In addition, it reflects on how that new theory might eventually influence religion, ethics, and our self-image as a species.

In important respects, my book is a riff on Charles Darwin's masterwork, The Origin of Species. Following Darwin's lead, I have endeavored to use the insights proffered by a wide range of gifted contemporary theorists&#8212cosmologists, evolutionary biologists, computer scientists, and complexologists—to construct the foundation for a novel and somewhat startling synthesis. The essence of that synthesis is that life, mind, and the fate of the cosmos are intimately and indissolubly linked in a very special way. To echo the insightful phrase of Princeton astrophysicist Freeman Dyson, it is my contention that "mind and intelligence are woven into the fabric of our universe in a way that altogether surpasses our comprehension."

The fundamental credo of science is that physical mysteries that presently elude human understanding will someday, if only in the far distant future, succumb to new explanatory paradigms that are capable of being either validated or discredited through falsifiable predictions. (Falsifiability of claims, which is scientific shorthand for the empirical testability of new hypotheses and their implications, is the hallmark of genuine science, sharply demarcating it from other arenas of human thought and experience like religion, mysticism, and metaphysics.) The basic claim of this book is that the oddly life-friendly character of the fundamental physical laws and constants that prevail in our universe can be explained as the predictable outcome of natural processes—specifically the evolution of life and intelligence over tens of billions of years.

The explanation that I shall put forward to elucidate the linkage between biological evolution and the ultimate fate of the cosmos&#8212a new theory called the "Selfish Biocosm" hypothesis—has been developed in papers and essays published in peer-reviewed scientific journals like Complexity (the journal of the Santa Fe Institute, the leading center for the study of the new sciences of complexity), Acta Astronautica (the journal of the International Academy of Astronautics), and the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. These papers provide the foundation for a scientifically plausible version of the "strong anthropic principle"—the notion that the physical laws and constants of nature are cunningly structured in such a way as to coax the emergence of life and intelligence from inanimate matter.

The book is divided into six parts. The first part reviews the profound mysteries of an anthropic—or life-friendly—universe. Beginning with ancient Greek philosophy, continuing on through Renaissance thought, and concluding with contemporary speculations by a leading complexity theorist about a mysterious antichaotic force in nature, this section provides the foundation for theoretical speculations about possible reasons why the universe is life-friendly.

The second part of the book plunges deeper into the anthropic mystery and probes some of the novel ideas that contemporary scientists have advanced by way of explanation. These include the conjecture by a leading cosmologist that black holes are gateways to new universes.

The third part makes a risky foray into the dangerous territory that is the situs of the contemporary cultural war between ultraevolutionists and modern creationists, who call themselves "intelligent design theorists." In a proposed harmonization of these conflicting viewpoints, I suggest that the appearance of cosmic design could conceivably emerge from the operation of evolutionary forces operating at unexpectedly large scales.

The fourth part of the book puts forward my new Selfish Biocosm hypothesis: that the anthropic qualities that our universe exhibits can be explained as incidental consequences of an enormously lengthy cosmic replication cycle in which a cosmologically extended biosphere provides the means by which our cosmos duplicates itself and propagates one or more "baby universes." The hypothesis suggests that the cosmos is "selfish" in the same metaphorical sense that evolutionary theorist and ultra-Darwinist Richard Dawkins proposed that genes are "selfish." Under my theory, the cosmos is "selfishly" focused upon the overarching objective of achieving its own replication. To use the terminology favored by economists, self-reproduction is the hypothesized "utility function" of the universe.

An implication of the Selfish Biocosm hypothesis is that the emergence of life and ever more accomplished forms of intelligence is inextricably linked to the physical birth, evolution, and reproduction of the cosmos. This section also provides a set of falsifiable implications by means of which the new hypothesis may be tested.

The fifth part of the book enters a more speculative realm by considering methods by which a sufficiently evolved form of intelligence might replicate the life-friendly physical laws and constants that prevail in our universe. In addition, it advances the idea that if the space-time continuum (i.e., our cosmos in its entirety) constitutes a closed loop linking one gateway of time (the Big Bang) to another (the Big Crunch), then our anthropic universe could conceivably, in the words of Princeton astrophysicist J. Richard Gott III, be its own mother.

The sixth and final section ponders the possible implications of the Selfish Biocosm hypothesis for fundamental evolutionary theory and for our self-image as a species. It also takes a brief look at possible religious and ethical implications of the hypothesis.

A major caveat is in order before we begin. This book is intentionally and forthrightly speculative. Following the example of Darwin, I have attempted to crudely frame a revolutionary explanatory paradigm well before all of the required building materials and construction tools are at hand. Darwin had not the slightest clue, for instance, that DNA is the molecular device used by all life-forms to accomplish the feat of what he called "inheritance." Indeed, as cell biologist Kenneth R. Miller noted in Finding Darwin's God, "Charles Darwin worked in almost total ignorance of the fields we now call genetics, cell biology, molecular biology, and biochemistry." Nonetheless, Darwin managed to put forward a plausible theoretical framework that succeeded magnificently despite the fact that it was utterly dependent on hypothesized but completely unknown mechanisms of genetic transmission.

As Darwin's example shows, plausible and deliberate speculation plays an essential role in the advancement of science. Speculation is the means by which new paradigms are initially constructed, to be either abandoned later as wrong-headed detours or vindicated as the seeds of scientific revolution.

Scientific speculation plays another equally important role, which is to shine the harsh light of skepticism on accepted verities. As the brilliant and controversial Cornell physicist Thomas Gold put it,

new ideas in science are not right just because they are new. Nor are old ideas wrong just because they are old. A critical attitude is clearly required of every seeker of truth. But one must be equally critical of both the old ideas as of the new. Whenever the established ideas are accepted uncritically and conflicting new evidence is brushed aside or not even reported because it does not fit, that particular science is in deep trouble.

Science is an inherently conservative discipline, and iconoclastic ideas like those entertained by Gold (the existence of a deep hot biosphere far beneath the planet's surface as well as the nonbiological origin of natural gas and oil) are legitimately relegated to what Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer calls the borderlands of science. But what must never be forgotten is that these dimly illuminated borderlands have frequently proven to be the breeding ground of revolutionary ideas.

Scientific revolutions differ profoundly in character from the normal practice of scientific investigation. Scientific historian Thomas Kuhn observed in his classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that normal science consists of puzzle solving within the framework provided by prevailing scientific paradigms (like Newtonian mechanics or Darwinian theory), which are themselves the fruit of earlier revolutions. Revolutionary science, by contrast, is a hazardous but utterly exhilarating process of creative destruction—the erection of fundamental new paradigms to supplant or supplement a foundational structure that has become hopelessly flawed. As science popularizer James Gleick put it in Chaos: Making a New Science,

Then there are the revolutions. A new science arises out of one that has reached a dead end. Often a revolution has an interdisciplinary character—its central discoveries often come from people straying outside the normal bounds of their specialties. The problems that obsess these theorists are not recognized as legitimate lines of inquiry. Thesis proposals are turned down or articles are refused publication. The theorists themselves are not sure whether they would recognize an answer if they saw one. They accept risk to their careers. A few freethinkers working alone, unable to explain where they are heading, afraid even to tell their colleagues what they are doing—that romantic image lies at the heart of Kuhn's scheme, and it has occurred in real life, time and time again.

The borderlands of science, in short, are the natural habitats of scientific revolutionaries—those free-spirited souls who cheerfully risk professional ridicule in return for the sublime privilege of attempting to pull one more veil from nature's deeply shrouded visage.

For me, the pathway to the particular scientific borderland that is the subject of this book has meandered through the novel intellectual landscape illuminated by the new sciences of complexity. These sciences, which explore phenomena like "emergence" (the generation of complicated phenomena such as consciousness from the interaction of relatively simple components like individual nerve cells), self-organization, and the operation of complex adaptive systems (like sets of coevolving species comprising a biosphere), have generated not only scholarly excitement but a rapidly rising level of popular interest. The great appeal of these sciences is their inherently holistic quality, so different from the reductionist approach favored by practitioners of so-called hard physical sciences like physics and chemistry. These traditional sciences tend to foster a "silo" mentality that frowns on cross-disciplinary thinking.' By contrast, scientists studying complexity deliberately seek out the recurrence of similar patterns of evolutionary development and emergence in a wide range of seemingly disconnected phenomena, from embryology to cultural evolution and from theoretical chemistry to the origin of life.

The key experimental tool utilized by complexologists is not physical measurement but computer simulation; the "experiments" of complexity scientists generally take place in what mathematician John Casti calls "would-be worlds" that exist only in the memory and logic chips of a computer. As Casti puts it, "With our newfound ability to create worlds for all occasions inside the computer, we can play myriad sorts of what-if games with genuine complex systems. No longer do we have to break the system into simpler subsystems or avoid experimentation completely because the experiments are too costly, too impractical, or just plain too dangerous."

The holistic philosophy embodied in the sciences of complexity is uniquely suited to the mission of the intellectual voyage on which we shall presently embark: to seek out and delineate, as precisely and exhaustively as possible, a specific theory concerning the linkage and "consilience" (in biologist Edward O. Wilson's resonant phrase) between the basic laws and constants governing the behavior of inanimate nature and the role of life and mind in the universe. As we shall see, the very fact that such consilience and linkage should exist is itself a profound ontological commentary.

Now, why am I&#8212an attorney, a complexity theorist, and a science essayist—qualified to serve as your guide on this daunting journey to the outer limits of cosmological theory? In part because, as an attorney, I am trained to search for faint and elusive patterns of evidence that a layperson might overlook—including evidence that crosses traditional disciplinary lines demarcating the borders of disparate scientific fields.

I first began probing the mysteries of complexity theory in a scholarly paper that proposed an interpretation of the behavior of subnational geopolitical regions (like Flanders in Belgium and Catalonia in Spain) as the operation of complex adaptive systems. After this essay was published in Complexity, I turned my attention to another set of complex phenomena: the probable future coevolution of "memes" (hypothetical units of cultural transmission) and genes in the context of the rapidly emerging technological capacity to engage in human germline genetic engineering. That essay—which is reproduced here in appendix 1—was likewise published in Complexity.

With that foundation in place, I decided to use the approach of complexity theory to probe an odd feature of cosmology that has intrigued me ever since I began studying philosophy and theoretical biology as an undergraduate at Yale: the strangely life-friendly quality of the physical laws and constants that prevail in our universe. As a lawyer, I was goaded by the sense that the patterns of evidence seemed to be pointing in a direction that most mainstream scientists were unwilling to explore. As a student of philosophy and biology, I was convinced that issues of profound importance were being overlooked or deliberately shunned. And as a recent convert to the holistic philosophy represented by the sciences of complexity, I was becoming increasingly convinced that the pathway to genuine enlightenment about the import of an anthropic universe&#8212a universe adapted to the needs of life just as thoroughly as life is adapted to the exigencies imposed by the universe—must surely pass through the strange and intriguing intellectual terrain revealed by these new sciences.

I explored that possibility in an essay published in Complexity entitled "The Selfish Biocosm: Complexity as Cosmology." I was privileged to have as the chief reviewer for this paper an individual who is one of the most distinguished theoretical cosmologists in the world. And I was equally privileged to have the services of a courageous editor—John Casti—who was willing to take a chance on a relatively unknown theorist advancing a radically new hypothesis about the intimate relationship of life and intelligence to fundamental cosmic forces and laws. That essay, of which this book is an expanded and augmented version, was my first attempt to crudely map out what is, for me at least, a singularly exciting new borderland of science.

Like a medieval European map maker piecing together the borders of an imagined America from travelers' tales and the misty recollections of ancient mariners, my role (at least as I perceive it) is not to serve as an explorer or experimentalist but rather to sketch the larger features of a vision of cosmic reality profoundly at odds with traditional wisdom. In medieval times, the orthodox view was that the surface of Earth was flat. In the contemporary era, the prevailing scientific mindset is captured curtly and elegantly by Nobelist Steven Weinberg's pithy epigram that "the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." It is my fervent hope that those who consider seriously the speculative exercise in intellectual cartography presented in this book will conclude that Weinberg's assertion may eventually prove to be as mistaken as the flat-Earth orthodoxy espoused with such strenuous but utterly misplaced confidence in a bygone age.

With that preface, I invite you to enter what I believe to be the least tamed and most challenging scientific borderland of all: current theorizing about the ultimate nature and destiny of the vast cosmos that envelops our tiny speck of Earth like an endless sea. Perhaps you will find in the speculative discourse that follows some useful nugget of fact or some momentary flash of insight that helps pierce, to at least a minuscule degree, the perplexing darkness that surrounds the outer ramparts of twenty-first-century cosmological science. If so, I will have succeeded in communicating a faint echo of the sense of wonder and awe at the abiding mysteries of nature so perfectly captured by Isaac Newton three hundred years ago: "I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before me."''

[Post New Comment]
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:


	What it would take to make sense posted on 08/29/2003 1:21 PM by jboyce	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
It seems to me that this hypothesis would make sense only if: 1. The universe can replicate and in so doing inherits traits (presumably physical laws and constants) from its parent(s), with some likelihood of variation 2. This replication process does not require life, but is quickened or made more probable by life's presence 3. There are multiple universes, and the average number of progeny, even in universes without life, is at least 1 (So the emergence of life is like the emergence of myelin around nerve fibers -- not required, but conferring advantage once hit upon.) #2 I find especially problematic. There are certainly scenarios where life creates universes (e.g., matrix-like simulation environments), but these mechanisms won't be capable of hitting on life itself. I may be missing the point here. There was a lot of discussion justifying fringe ideas in science, but not much clarity on what this particular fringe idea really is.


	Re: What it would take to make sense posted on 09/01/2003 7:20 AM by christaltman	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
[b]Re: Replication[/b] 2) This replication process does not require life, but is quickened or made more probable by life's presence Consider the possibility of a Stage III civilization as defined by Kaku, one possessing technological capabilities sufficient to trigger inflationary expansion, and apply the concept of the genetic algorithm to the multiverse. The idea originated with cosmologist Alan Guth: "Since the inflationary theory implies that the entire observed universe can evolve from a tiny speck, it is hard to stop oneself from asking whether a universe can in principle be created in the laboratory?" Alan Guth I briefly discussed this in a paper at http://www.umsl.edu/~altmanc/expansion.pdf


	Re: What it would take to make sense posted on 09/01/2003 10:22 PM by andrew_cowan	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
jboyce, I agree. The basic claim of this book is that the oddly life-friendly character of the fundamental physical laws and constants that prevail in our universe can be explained as the predictable outcome of natural processes'specifically the evolution of life and intelligence over tens of billions of years. I really don't see how Gardner's evolutionary paradigm would help explain our life-friendly universe. At best his hypothesis would predict that once there was one life-bearing universe, it could spawn others. However, this is not the task at hand - we know of only one life-bearing universe - ours - and we need to explain its unlikely life-friendly properties. A multiple universes hypothesis can be used to explain the awesome coincidences in physical constants necessary to support life in our universe. On the other hand, Gardner's hypothesis adds extra complexity but no extra explanatory power. Gardner's hypothesis is a solution looking for a problem.


	what if.... posted on 09/02/2003 12:51 AM by Dmarksvr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
What if the purpose of the universe/multiverse, isnt just to replicate itself, but also to simply exhaust all possibilities? in such a case it would not be necessary or probably even desirable for every universe to have atleast one offspring, Universes that are dead or have no organization of matter(dead by default) would likely be dead end paths not worth going down any further. That particular possible universe would contain nothing worth passing on, you've taken that path and now there is no where else to go from there. so it will be up to others on other paths to continue on. Just like some evolutionary paths for lifeforms are dead ends, but life as a whole goes on. Why would exhausting all possibilities be desirable? Maybe the implications of Mind having an intrinsic or important role to play in universal life cycles goes beyond just replication or beeing just some novel feature that arises in certain conditions when enough complexity occurs. Perhaps the whole system has a collective conscienceness, that arises out of complexity. Just as no single cell is conscience, but many together can give rise to it, maybe no single life form is completely conscience but together they form a greater conscienceness(a self aware one maybe). And perhaps the goal of that entity is to simply know itself, and what better way to know yourself then to put yourself into every possibly situation, to explore all the possibilities. It may take more then one universe for such an entity to do that. once all possible wave functions in every universe are collapsed then everything that can be, will have been (if it is possible that all wave functions can be collapased)or maybe all virtual particle interactions (left over possiblities when one particular wave function is callapsed/path chosen, are left to be explored in another universe if so then life, atleast somewhere in one universe or another will go on forever,and the whole multiverse system might ironically be engaged in a futile attempt to know itself completely but in the very act of trying to do so creating more and more complexity endlessly. But the upside would be atleast then the system as a whole would be immortal, if thats an upside. Its also interesting to consider that if this is the only system, and that system does have some form of conscienceness then it might be lonely or bored and have nothing better to do then try and explore itself completely however futile that might be. just a theory Dave


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/02/2003 12:16 PM by sushi101	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
The problem with the theory is that it does not explain anything. So what if we are made by other creatures, they then would have to explain their own existence and so on. Turtles all the way back. That is exactely why I am an athetist. Anything with a mind would have to have been created by something. If not then the whole basis for claiming that we could not exist without a mind false apart. The basic problem IMHO is patience. Religieus people don't have it because the think they are being judged for how they live this life. So instead they build an explanation an absolute truth that gives them something to live by. But just because there is not meaning with life, there can be plenty of meaning in life and on could be to take it one step at a time and not assume anything.


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/02/2003 1:45 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
The problem with the theory is that it does not explain anything. once again I see you missing the whole point of IDEAS- stop looking for practical concepts which bring simple "understanding" of limited models- every idea- ANY idea brings a multitude of new perspectives- new views of Cosmos that are INFINITELY more valuable and usefule [for generating more ideas and observations] than the silly [and almost entirely WRONG] scientific doo-dads du jour that practical "theories" provide- perhaps only one in 50 discoveries/useful ideas/ concepts about Nature have come from the application of rational/practical/utilitarian science- the rest were radical schizoid fevered-visions and were/are responsible for the sum of Human knowledge and acheivement- those practical utilitarian ideas which by dumb random chance happened to provide knowledge or technologies have ALWAYS followed from the radical/crazy/new ideas that establish the foundations first [QM/ Relativity/ Evolution/ etc/etc/etc]- doesn't explain anything? EVERY idea- even really wrong-headed ones explains MANY things and can point to many new ideas- ESPECIALLY ideas which QUALIFY perspectives- like this one-


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/02/2003 11:19 PM by andrew_cowan	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
/:setAI: what you describe seems to have a lot more in common with acid-dropping rockers than with scientists. The examples you mention: QM, relativity, evolution may have been revolutionary, but they certainly weren't "radical schizoid fevered-visions". Each of these theories were developed to satisfy specific problems with the contemporary state of knowledge. Indeed, what made each of these theories great was that they were useful in furthering current understanding, ie: practical. Your criticism of theories for bringing "simple understanding" is utterly absurd. Understanding is no more and no less than what science hopes to achieve.


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/03/2003 12:22 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
read again- you are missing a basic undenyable point here- all human knowledge derives from completely arbitrary anthropomorphic conceptual frameworks- NO theory exists without a framework substrate in which to exist IN- ALL conceptual frameworks are soley the result of unique vision- of ideas emerging from neurologic processes structurally similar to dementia [and in the case of most of the ideas we have built our knowledge on- dementia and epiphany seem to occupy the same minds ] also- anyone who dismisses psychotropics as some foolish youthful intoxication- doesn't know ANYTHING about the human brain or how it works- I do- ANYONE that DOES understands how psychologically powerful and useful psychotropics are- after all it was we that used these chemicals for decades in ground-breaking cognitive research and in mental health- if you are going to relax your own mind and throw nearly a century of vital research and data out the window to embrace the unbelievably STUPID political propeganda of 50's and 60's generation segregationist fearmongering christian conservative politicians who used the illogical and immoral reclassification of LSD into a schedule 1 drug in defferance to Reason- then I am afraid that you make illegitamate and moot any claim you make- what is next- are you going to explain how the Holocaust never happened and was just a myth propogated by acid hippies? I'm just tired from ignorance and outright INCORRECT positions by people who should know better-


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/03/2003 1:52 PM by griffman	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
The examples you mention: QM, relativity, evolution may have been revolutionary, but they certainly weren't "radical schizoid fevered-visions". When those theories were created, they WERE radical schizoid ravings. they just turned out to be fairly correct. The problem with the theory is that it does not explain anything. It doesn't explain anything YET.... the point of it being a fringe idea is that is an understandable, logical pursepective that can be taken. it may not be usefull but we know its there and someone has Identified it. If it turns out to be usefull to someone then it becomes practical and greatly important for explaining everything. this IS the point of IDEAS what you describe seems to have a lot more in common with acid-dropping rockers than with scientists. I remember a common story about Einstien that while in D.C., he had written under his shirt coller something along the lines of "if found, please return to :......" for when some one found him wondering the streets muttering to himself.... any person that requires such a tag one should be sceptical of their theories. as Einstien proved they should not be outright debunked. Each of these theories were developed to satisfy specific problems with the contemporary state of knowledge. Indeed, what made each of these theories great was that they were useful in furthering current understanding, ie: practical. Only now after so many years is the general population considering what Darwin observed as "practical". there are even still minority groups that say its udderly absurd. at the time there was no problem with contemporary knowledge that anyone could identify, other being wrong, which is what Darwin discovered and pointed out. purspective is a very important concept. one that gets overlooked by way too many people who say they have the answers. to use the quote from the article : Charles Darwin worked in almost total ignorance of the fields we now call genetics, cell biology, molecular biology, and biochemistry. which without those fields. the idea seems useless and silly. As Darwin's example shows, plausible and deliberate speculation plays an essential role in the advancement of science. Speculation is the means by which new paradigms are initially constructed, to be either abandoned later as wrong-headed detours or vindicated as the seeds of scientific revolution. this is why perspective of ideas being presented today should not be overlooked just because they have no use. If the idea hold true to logic,_from_a_certain_perspective_, then it should be noted and further analysed. the mere process of analyizing such a fringe Idea can lead to unexpected and unbelievable discoveries. ... I paused in writting this to finish reading the article before commenting... you may want to do the same as your arguments are well debated there in Setiai's favor...... I agree with his views and the notion of the goal of the universe, and creating life WITHIN that universe, is to replicate more universes (universi?). It jives well with the implications I give for the advancement of video games and virtual worlds, as these can easily be considered other universes in the scientific sense from the point of view of being inside said universe. the problem is the ciclical feedback loops that are created and what the implications of their presence represents. as I find that the loops tend to apear in nature rather often, I don't think its much of a problem but more of one of the underlying misteries to be discovered that connects everything together. I have to say the article did a good job in selling me the book. I now have to go get it. If I remember I'll try to write a review here. I wouldn't mind hearing anyone else review it too. 2. This replication process does not require life, but is quickened or made more probable by life's presence doesn't the process of replication fullfill the definition of life? aren't all other requirements met by the universe already? that would mean that the universe we live in is just a thought in some unknowable being's mind. gee, how'd we end up back here? 8) cheers Griffman P.S. I am in no way condoning dropping acid to induce schizoid fevered-visions. Setiai you may feel free to do so though ;)


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/03/2003 2:18 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
P.S. I am in no way condoning dropping acid to induce schizoid fevered-visions. Setiai you may feel free to do so though ;) hehe- ah youth- if I were to indulge in that stuff today- I would just spend all day watching the cartoon network- but when I was a young research assistant in college- man- have you ever seen the film Altered States with William Hurt? that was what my college days were like! lot's of Ayahuasca and sens-dep tanks- I know far too much about "space-time fallout" ;) call me old fashioned- but I still believe that there is a possibility of vast evolution of Human Consciousness/ Culture/ Symbology with Psychotropics and Psychedelics- and the fact that my collegues and I cannot do any research with these chemicals thanks to politically motivated laws- still REALLY irks me no end- whenever someone makes a cute remark about LSD- I get pretty damned angry- it's bad enougfh when the unknowing masses who have been indoctrinated by these conservative politics make silly comments- but when people who claim to study SCIENCE and who search for truth spout such pablum- it really is a tragedy and cause for alarm to me


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/03/2003 2:34 PM by griffman	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I will admit that I have never tried LSD. and your advocacy does make the prospect appealing, on occasion 8). I still feel i would not try it for the simple reason that the current available product is by far the most untrustworthy substance i have ever been offered. about the only kind I would be willing to try would be in a scientific research program. the exploration of the mind is such an appealing journey. griffman


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/03/2003 2:35 PM by griffman	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
where can you get a sensory deprivation tank? 8)


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/03/2003 2:41 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
they sell them to rich trendy people now- I'd bet you can find one at Sharper Image these days :D


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/19/2003 3:30 PM by amrito	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Dott. Amrit Sorli Dott. Kusum Sorli Osho Miasto Institute Podere San Giorgio 16 53012, Chiusdino (SI), Italy spacelife@libero.it EVOLUTION AS AN UNIVERSAL PROCESS Abstract Greene emphasis that gravity conserves entropy, that the total entropy of the universe sums to zero. From this point of view evolution can be understood as an universal negentropic process that evolves to the zero entropy of the universe. Key words: evolution, entropy, universe, Greene Introduction In his book "The Elegant Universe" Greene says: Gravity conserves entropy; for example, in the cosmic gravitational collapse of the "Big Crunch", the total heat loss and entropy of the Universe is reversed; in such a case, the total entropy of the Universe sums to zero. Gravity replaces positive spatial entropy with a metrically equivalent positive temporal entropy; spatial expansion is reduced because it funds the temporal component of the total entropy equation (1). In the universe the entropy of matter is continuously increasing and the entropy of life is continuously decreasing. The total entropy of the universe sums to zero. From this point of view the evolution of life can be seen as an universal negentropic process that is continuously developing towards a total entropy of the universe. The relationship between evolution life as and the total entropy of the universe that sums to zero can be described using the following equation: Y = f (X) Y stands for the evolution of life X stands for a total entropy of the universe that sums to zero entropy diagram According to this understanding evolution of life is a continuation of the evolution of the universe. Several experiments supports this idea. They show that functions of living organism is directly related to the cosmic gravitational field. It seems that gravity play an essential role in the evolution of life on the Earth. As gravitational field is the same throughout the entire universe, one could predict that gravitational field play same role also on the planets that are similar to the our. Life could also have developed there. Materials and Methods Spaceflight induces a cephalad redistribution of fluid volume and blood flow within the human body and space motion sickness, which has a problem during first few days of spaceflight, could be related to these changes in fluid status and in blood flow of the cerebrum and vestibular system (2). In weightlessness there is a decreased activity of spinal ganglia neurons of the hypothalamic nuclei producing arginine, vasopressin and growth hormone releasing factor. Structural changes of the somatosensory cortex and spinal ganglia suggest a decreased afferant flow to the somatosensory cortex in microgravity. The results characterise the mechanisms of structural adaptation to a decreased afferant flow in microgravity by the neurons in the hemisphere cortex and brain stem nuclei. So, under microgravity there is a neuron hypoactivity (3). Microgravity has a direct influence on bone fracture healing because of poor production of bone callus in microgravity: there is an increase volume of osteoid and a decrease in the number and activity of osteoblasts (4). Experiment carried out at the University of Lubiana, Slovenia in 1987-1988 with Californian worms (Latin name is: Lumbricus Teresticus) shows that the weight of living Californian Worms greater than of the same dead ones; gravitational force of the cosmic space is stronger on the living worms than on the same dead ones (5). Research done by Penrose and Hameroff suggest that the force of quantum gravity acting on the mass of neurones within the brain may be responsible for the emergence of consciousness. The process is fundamentally related to the influence of quantum gravity on microtubule networks within the neurones (6,7) . Discussion The idea that evolution of life on the Earth is a part of a wider universal process is supported by the discovery of basic organic molecules necessary for the development of life in the whole of observable space (8). This means that universal space is in the phase of chemical evolution which on Earth and similar planets has continued into biological evolution. Life is the latest part of the evolution of the universe. Kompanichenko says: Approximately four billion years ago, living systems appeared on Earth and formed the superstructure over the lower organized geochemical systems. The simplest organisms were characterized by availability of unique mechanism that permitted them to transform actions from outside world and to return strengthened /expedient counteraction back into the environment. Giving an energetic profit from this exchange, living beings in fact extract free energy from the environment and accumulated it. The forms of life, which lost the ability for the active extraction, in the long run were eliminated by natural selection. Using one more unique quality - regular self-renovation, living system step-by-step complicated and transformed the planetary medium into an environment. The extraordinary complicated human civilization is the top of this process. Both animate and inanimate natural systems of the universe are interrelated by the deepest universal processes and regularities. This shows unity of nature and allows us to support the opinion that life should be the widespread phenomenon in the cosmos (9). Krall says: There are some hints that life could have been brought to earth from elsewhere in our solar system or even galaxy. Life tends towards more complexity but Homo Sapiens is not the pride of creation but rather an accident in evolution. Humans may disappear as they have come but evolution will continue. Life as such is not an accident but a function of our universe (10). Conclusion The main impulse for the development of life is a total entropy of the universe that sums to zero. All over the universe matter has an intrinsic tendency to evolve into life and then into conscious species. In the evolution on the earth human consciousness is the phenomenon that is closest to the zero entropy of the universe. Best Wishes, Dott. Amrit Sorli, Dott. Kusum Sorli References: 1. Greene B. (1999), B. The Elegant Universe. W.W. Norton & Co., 448 + xiii pp. 2. US Army (1993), Madigan Army Medical Centre, Tacoma, Washington ' Cerebral blood velocity and other cardiovascular responses to 2 days head down tilt. Journal of Applied Physiology, 74 (1): 319-25 3. Krasnov IB.(1994), Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia. 'Gravitational neuromorphology', Advances in Space Biology and Medicine 4:85-110, 4. Durnova G.N., Burkovskaia TE. Voraotnikova E.V., Kaplanskil A.S., Arustamov O.V., (1991),'The effect of weightlessness on fracture healing of rats flown on Biosatellite Cosmos 2044', Kosmicheskaia Biologiia I Aviakosmosmicheskaia Meditsina 25 (5):29-33, 5. Sorli (2001) Additional Roundness of Space-Time and Unknown Vacuum Energies in Living Organisms, Frontier Perspectives, Vol.10, Nr. 2 6. Penrose, Roger (1994), 'Shadows of the Mind' (Oxford) pp 377-391. 7. Hameroff, Stuart (1994), 'Quantum Coherence in Microtubules: A Neural Basis for Emergent Consciousness?' , Journal of Consciousness Studies Vol.1, No.1, pp 91-118 8. Stephen F. Mason (1991), Chemical Evolution: Origin of the Elements, Molecules, and Living Systems, Oxford University Press 1991 9. Kompanichenko (2003), Distinctive Properties of Biological Systems: The All-Around Comparison with Other Natural Systems, Frontier Perspectives, Vol. 12, Num. 1, Temple University, Philadelphia 10. Stephan Krall (2002), Life and Light, Network, Journal Of Scientific And Medical Network, Number 78


	Re: what if.... posted on 05/25/2006 3:48 AM by BeAfraid	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Have you ever read any of Stanislav Groff's works on LSD ("The LSD Experience" and "The Holotropic Mind") They are the essential modern works on research into Psychotropic research. I myself was "cured" (I so hate that word) of Heroin addiction by such therapy (LSD). It is pretty much the only time I have done LSD, but obviously, I have done other unfortunate substances... So, I wouldn't go excusing all use of LSD as inducing only... What was it you said "Schizoid-Fevered visions"? As a matter of connection with the current state of things. I tend to do a lot of work at getting many illicit chemicals rescheduled, so that they will not be made from questionable products, but will be reliable drugs that can be used for many problems. Groff also advocates the use of LSD (and other psychotropics) for those who begin to feel their ability to learn new and/or different things. Memory loss from aging is something that both Groff and Leary claimed to be halted or slowed by the controlled use of LSD. As for intelligent life being the architect of the Universe...I think that Gardner is probably wrong, but he gave me a lot to think about, and some of those thoughts may eventually bear fruit of their own that prove valuable.


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/03/2003 1:37 AM by Dmarksvr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
In a system like i described you wouldn't need a first cause, things would just BE. If time and motion and even casual relationships are a perceptial illusion rooted in our inability to experience everything that is at once, then you dont need turtles all the way down. Because turtles dont exist except in our head. anyways i dont get aithiess, Saying there is no god when there is no definative proof one way or the other is just as bad as saying there is a god and he is like this (blank) and you'll go to hell if you dont do what he wants. Claiming that much knowledge one way or the other seems arrogant to me. I choose to believe in a god, but i dont claim to be able to describe that god other then being the reason i exist, but i'm well aware that at any moment i may find out i'm wrong, and that there is no god of any imaginable type even the type i described (though mine is a pretty open definition) and i expect no one that believes differently to be subject to the implications of my beliefs. Anyways though i dont get atheists, or people who believe in god and claim to know so much about god. Agnostics i understand, no shame in admitting you dont know. Maybe even kinda brave, i just to believe that some kind of god exists because in my mind thats what the evidence points to, and also my own experiences point towards the same conclusion. Dave


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/06/2003 8:48 AM by hughbristic	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I choose to believe in a god, but i dont claim to be able to describe that god other then being the reason i exist, but i'm well aware that at any moment i may find out i'm wrong, and that there is no god of any imaginable type even the type i described (though mine is a pretty open definition) and i expect no one that believes differently to be subject to the implications of my beliefs. How could you ever find out that you were wrong and that there is "no god of any imaginable type?" What would possibly count as disconfirmatory evidence? To "get" atheists, you have to understand that we feel such "open definitions" are worse than useless. They are, in fact, meaningless, because they don't do any explanatory "work." I think it says more about the psychology of agnostics than the close-mindedness of atheists that such a conceptually bankrupt concept is accepted as possible by the former and rejected outright by the latter. Also, I am not a mathematician and have never even taken physics, but, on the face of it, anthropic reasoning doesn't make sense to me. If the universe is all there is, than what frame of reference do you have for saying it is rare in its characteristics? Doesn't saying something is unlikely assume a set of somethings to compare it against? The common definition of the universe is that it is everything, so there is no set outside of it, making statements of probability meaningless, no? Resorting to the multiple universes hypothesis seems an unparsimonious effort to solve a non-existent problem. Hugh


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/06/2003 5:50 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
They are, in fact, meaningless, because they don't do any explanatory "work." but the opposite is true- because the idea generates the PRACTICAL possibility that if there are other/ deeper/ subtler/ vaster emergent systems of "Consciusness"/Will/Intent from larger/more whole metasystems of the cosmos- or the whole cosmos- then it follows that there should/could be many ways for OUR type of emergence to interact with/ synergise with/ flow in the same current with- these "god" systems/collectives/emergent-wills- and thus beings like us and species like ours might bootstrap/kludge/focus/resonate much much more powerful forces of creation/destruction/synthesis than what we can acheive ourselves- and on every level of action and interaction


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/06/2003 6:05 PM by subtillioN	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Resorting to the multiple universes hypothesis seems an unparsimonious effort to solve a non-existent problem. Exactly. The Multiple Universes hypothesis is a forced reaction to the paradox/error which is at the heart of modern physics. It is the only way of making sense of the collapse of the wave-function nonsense while remaining within the closed system which declares itself absolutely complete and correct. There is a deeper level of causality by which the whole multiplicity can by causally unified, but this requires an abandonment of the core paradigm of scientific reductionism--the atom/void duality.


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/07/2003 1:14 AM by Dmarksvr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I wasn't stating my belief as a fact, its a choice, i choose to call whatever it is that put me here "god", other then that there isnt alot to say about him/her/it. My point was that an open definition of god is ok, an idea of god, but belief especially one you consider a fact, and especially if you consider it a fact not just for your self but others too, that i think is arrogant. There are lots of arguements, and all kinds of information you can twist around to TRY and prove the existance of god, or to TRY and disprove it, but the truth is, we just dont know, we cant even agree on a definition for god. So stating that god(whatever that is) doesnt' exist is just as arrogant as claiming he does, and he says this, and if u dont listen you'll go to hell. Nobody knows, atleast agnostics admit that, the difference between me and them is they stop there, and i choose to call whatever that thing is i dont know god, or the thing that created me or, i'm a part of... god, either is fine. Whether god exists depends a great deal on how you define god. The reason i've adopted this idea, is because science it great about telling us how things happen, and maybe someday it will be able to tell us exactly how everything works, but will it be able to say why it works, what breaths life into the equations as so many scientists put it? maybe eventually, maybe not, so what am i to do in the mean time? well i choose believe that there is some underlying order, hopefully with a purpose, and where there is purpose there is a will, and with will comes at least some form of conscience, and i choose to call that god. As far as the multiverse stuff goes, hell i dont know, but i havent seen enough evidence to rule it out, alot of people much smarter then me say there may be something to it, alot of the math seems to point in that direction so i'm inclined to trust them and let that situation work itself out on its own. But i will say, that there seems to be no logical error in supposing that this universe in but one component in a much larger system, like one of many cells in an animal, except in this animal maybe the neiboring cell or organ or whatever is reallly far away, atleast by our standards, or what if what we percieve as the universe is just the nucleus or some other part of a much larger cell. Any of these things though probably unlikely is possible, and as long as thats true, i think its wrong to completely dismiss any notion however improbable it seems. Dont be so arrogant!!! ;) there is a such thing as oversimplifying or being to reductionist (in regards to akum's razor, or however its spelled) Dave


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/07/2003 2:00 AM by subtillioN	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
You are correct. The problem of God is a problem of definitions. I define God in a similar way as you. God is the intrinsic nature of being. It is causality itself--that which has brought everything into existence through its own propensity for existence.


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/07/2003 3:06 PM by hughbristic	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I wasn't stating my belief as a fact, its a choice, i choose to call whatever it is that put me here "god", other then that there isnt alot to say about him/her/it. My point was that an open definition of god is ok, an idea of god, but belief especially one you consider a fact, and especially if you consider it a fact not just for your self but others too, that i think is arrogant. There are lots of arguements, and all kinds of information you can twist around to TRY and prove the existance of god, or to TRY and disprove it, but the truth is, we just dont know, we cant even agree on a definition for god. ... Dont be so arrogant!!! ;) I wasn't being arrogant. Hubristic maybe, but never arrogant! ;-) What IS arrogant is saying that the only justification I need have for my belief is that I "choose" it. While people should, of course, be free to believe anything they wish and express their beliefs, saying that I have my "truth" and you have your "truth" and that never the twain shall meet displays the sort of narcissistic relativism that is the first step on the road to oppression. Why listen to others--why try to learn from them--if your beliefs need so little justification? It seems to me when a shared world of experience is not the ultimate arbiter of truth, the only way left to resolve disagreements is by force. It is not arrogant to say, based on a thoughtful examination of what another says, "You are wrong." What IS wrong is saying "I don't need to try to clearly define what I'm saying," and then use that vagueness as a brickbat for accussing others of narrow-minededness when they fail to accept your ill-defined mush as a useful means of dealing with the world. Hugh


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/07/2003 4:23 PM by grantcc	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Even scientific beliefs are not "the truth," otherwise scientists would not have to keep revising them every time they get new information. As a biologist once told me: "When I started learnig about biology, a cell only had three parts. Now it has as many parts as a human body." In the end, there is no absolute truth. Too often what we think we see is so colored by language and culture that two or more people seeing the same thing will draw diffent conclusions about what they saw. An experiment I once read about cited a class watching a film about a car accident. When the instructor asked the students "What was the blonde haired woman doing?" many of the students gave conflicting answers. The "truth" was that there was no "blonde haired woman" in the film. What the students "remembered" was colored by the question the teacher asked. So in most cases "the truth" is what we agree on about what we see or hear. Last week I watched Casablanca again. I was waiting for that oft cited line, "Play it again, Sam." It wasn't there. But until I spent the entire movie waiting for the line to be spoken, I would have sworn I heard it the first time I saw the movie. I didn't. A great deal of what we believe to be true is like that. Perception is distorted by memory and expectation. People who study language can tell you that words in a sentence are usually run together and there are few words that are separated in the stream of utterances we spit out. But the mind, after years of training, will put spaces between the words that aren't there, just because we expect them to be. For the most part, we hear what we expect to hear and see what we expect to see based on the culture we grew up in.


	Re: what if.... posted on 09/07/2003 4:48 PM by hughbristic	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
An experiment I once read about cited a class watching a film about a car accident. When the instructor asked the students "What was the blonde haired woman doing?" many of the students gave conflicting answers. The "truth" was that there was no "blonde haired woman" in the film. What the students "remembered" was colored by the question the teacher asked. So in most cases "the truth" is what we agree on about what we see or hear. No. The "truth", as you yourself stated, is that there was no blond haired woman in the film. You make my point. The fact that we all have biases is true, but trivially so. The important thing to a growth in understanding is recognizing that there is a truth, or at least a more accurate picture of it, beyond our indiviual perceptions that we can come to know better by comparing our observations with those of others (particularly those with a broader perspective than our own). Hugh


	Re: what if.... posted on 10/22/2003 7:38 AM by thephilosopher	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
The problem with the theory is that it does not explain anything. Not so. The mystery it sets out to explain is not so much the mystery of the origin of life... it's the mystery that our universe is fine-tuned to a ridiculous implausible degree to create life. One interpretation of Gardner's theory (NOT the closed time loop version) is that it envisions a sequence of universes, the earliest of which is not fine-tuned for life, but nonetheless create some form of it which eventually is able to spawn new universes. This is NOT turtles all the way back, any more than the theory of the evolution of homo sapiens is turtles all the way back. Does the theory add unnecessary complexity? Well, it depends on what the alternatives are. As Einstein remarked, things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. I'm not sure a multi-verse with a near infinity of universes of which just a few happen to be able to create life is any less complex... and it's certainly less satisfying as an explanation. To me the key question raised by the theory is: could a universe that wasn't fine tuned for life, nonetheless create some form of life. It's one thing to say that if any of six fundamental variables in OUR universe were fractionally different, no complexity would ever have arisen. It's another to suggest that there is NO set of simple physical laws which could spawn complexity except by being "fine-tuned". The work of Wolfram, and the computer game of Life would suggest that very simple algorithms can generate spectacular complexity very quickly. So here's a possible script: In the beginning was an algorithm. And the algorithm begat complexity. And the complexity begat replicators. And the replicators evolved. And the evolved replicators begat new algorithms with the complexity to simulate a variety of physical laws, including some partially tuned to generate complexity. And the partially-tuned physical laws begat simple unviverses with the ability to spawn simple life. ...etc... As a layman, the fine-tuning issue remains one of the most perplexing unanswered questions out there. Gardner's theory, if nothing else, is an intriguing attempt to move the debate forward.


	Re: what if.... posted on 10/22/2003 7:58 AM by Tomaz_(Thomas)_Kristan	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Or - it was a simple self modifying algorithm, which modifies itself since. Universe is just a byproduct of this process.


	Re: what if.... posted on 10/22/2003 11:59 AM by grantcc	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
In the beginning was an algorithm. And the algorithm begat complexity. And the complexity begat replicators. And the replicators evolved. I think you're on the right track, but you have the order confused. Try this on for size: In the beginning was chaos. Chaos begat order Order begat replication Replication began complexity Life on Earth evolved.


	Re: what if.... posted on 10/22/2003 1:02 PM by subtillioN	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
how about this one. In the beginning was order. Order begat complexity Complexity begat chaos Chaos begat higher forms of order Higher forms of order begat higher forms of complexity Higher forms of complexity begat even higher forms of chaos, order and complexity ... etc. etc. Thus order begat complexity begat chaos begat evolution to higher forms of order. This cycle continues to self-evolute and involute. Replication is simply one of these higher forms of order, a mechanism for complexification and chaos to emerge into even higher fors of order.


	Re: what if.... posted on 10/22/2003 1:29 PM by subtillioN	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
But... chaos cannot exist without complexity and complexity cannot exist without order and order cannot exist without chaos Thus it is the rendering of this eternal cyclical/heirarchical process into a logical sequence with a "beginning" and culmination that causes the obvious logical validity of switching the order around.


	Closed Timelike Curves posted on 09/07/2003 7:35 AM by christaltman	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
See the LANL archive for Li and Gott's original paper on closed timelike curves : Can the Universe Create Itself? astro-ph/9712344 The question of first cause has troubled philosophers and cosmologists alike. Now that it is apparent that our universe began in a Big Bang explosion, the question of what happened before the Big Bang arises. Inflation seems like a very promising answer, but as Borde and Vilenkin have shown, the inflationary state preceding the Big Bang must have had a beginning also. Ultimately, the difficult question seems to be how to make something out of nothing. This paper explores the idea that this is the wrong question - that that is not how the Universe got here. Instead, we explore the idea of whether there is anything in the laws of physics that would prevent the Universe from creating itself. Because spacetimes can be curved and multiply connected, general relativity allows for the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs). Thus, tracing backwards in time through the original inflationary state we may eventually encounter a region of CTCs giving no first-cause. Some specific scenarios (out of many possible ones) for this type of model are described. For example: an inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself. Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own mother.


	Re: Closed Timelike Curves posted on 09/07/2003 2:50 PM by subtillioN	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
The question of first cause has troubled philosophers and cosmologists alike. There can be no creation ex nihilo, thus no first cause. The question presupposes an acausal absurdity thus its conclusions are absurd and can only be answered by further absurdities such as mathematical abstractions with no recourse to causality. Now that it is apparent that our universe began in a Big Bang explosion, the question of what happened before the Big Bang arises. It is only 'apparent' to physicists who don't keep abreast of the constant falsifications that have been excluded from the mainstream physics community. There is zero evidence that there was a Big Bang and zero evidence that the universe is even expanding. The Big Bang Theory and especially the 'Doppler interpretation of the Hubble redshift' has been falsified several times over, but the physics community ignores the direct astronomical data because it conflicts with the cosmogonic myth of the Big Bang. The following is a quote from : http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The "Fingers of God" The diagram above [not available here, but see the link above] is an attempt to plot the positions of the galaxies we can see from Earth that are located in a ninety degree field of view centered on the Virgo Galaxy Cluster. The distance of each galaxy that was used to make this plot is computed by presuming that its actual distance is proportional to its redshift value - as modern astronomers do. As a result, the Virgo cluster itself takes on the shape of two long fingers pointed directly at Earth. These have become known as "The Fingers of God". (Shown here in red.) Long cosmic sized fingers pointed directly at Earth! This result is false on its face. It is independent proof that the "redshift equals distance" assumption is nonsense. Again - Copernicus discovered many years ago that the Earth was not the center of anything! A galaxy cluster should have a more symmetrical shape than this. Arp demonstrates that the Virgo cluster is much more compact than it appears in this diagram. The high redshift galaxies in the upper regions of the diagram are not far away - they are just very young! And much closer to us than this diagram would indicate. How astrophysicists can continue to look at this diagram and not see that something is very wrong with their theory is evidence of how disconnected from reality they have become. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The doppler interpretation of Hubble red-shift is proven to give false results, therefore there must be another mechanism for the red-shift. If there is another mechanism is necessary (and already simply understood) then there is no need to assume that the galaxies are receding from eachother to acount for the red-shift. Thus there is zero evidence for an expanding universe and Occams Razor makes quick work of such extravagent claims made by the Big Bang Theory. Physicists who don't contiually search for alternatives which fit the data better from the ground up risk the chance of ultimately wasting their time on incorrect theories. Such is the case with those who ignore the more coherent plasma cosmology models which require zero dark matter and zero hypothetical entities. All of plasma cosmology can be researched in the lab as the plasma phenomology is directly scaleable between the scale of the laboratories and that of the cosmos. Plasma cosmology is laboratory science not pi in the sky abstract and untestable hypothetical theory. It does not rest on the cnstant influx of hypothetical inventions which plague the standard model. see: www.electric-cosmos.org Inflation seems like a very promising answer, but as Borde and Vilenkin have shown, the inflationary state preceding the Big Bang must have had a beginning also. Ultimately, the difficult question seems to be how to make something out of nothing. Inflation is just another kludge to fix an incorrect theory. From: http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 12. DOES INFLATION FIX THE BIG BANG? Inflation theory, that was invented for the purpose, is said to provide simple solutions to some of the problems of pre-inflation BBT.(3,4) However, convincing support for claims of solutions to the singularity, smoothness, horizon, and flatness problems is lacking. Inflation theorists have alleged that the inflationary expansion of the early BB universe, involving speeds orders of magnitude greater than that of light,(3,4) did not involve the travel of mass or energy, and thus did not violate the theory of relativity in solving the singularity problem. But how inflation, as opposed to ordinary expansion, can in some manner displace all the mass or energy of the universe without physically moving it, defies common understanding. A violation of Einstein's prohibition of speeds in excess of that of light seems to be inherent in that process. The quantum concept of false vacuum, previously postulated only to deal with the spontaneous generation of the tiny fundamental particles of modern physics, is called upon by inflation theory to instantaneously produce the mass and energy of the entire universe. But this sudden appearance of the universe from the energy of vacuum,(1) still essentially out-of-nothing, does not escape the perception of an enormous violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy. Inflation theorists have also explained that an enormous cosmic repulsive force (an enormously large cosmological constant)(1) provided the expansive force necessary for an exponential expansion of the universe. However, as previously noted, both the birth of the universe from a gigantic vacuum fluctuation(2,52) and the expansion of the universe from a gigantic cosmic repulsive force are speculations that have no means of verification. Perhaps as a form of insurance for their claim of inflation's enormous expansion of the early universe without violation of the conservation of mass/energy, some inflation theorists have borrowed the BB zero net energy idea that an equivalent amount of energy is merely on loan from the energy of the vacuum; that loan to be repaid upon the ultimate collapse of the universe. Because of the apparent impossibility of a collapsing closed universe, that repayment might be put off indefinitely. However, even if the BB universe were some day to collapse, that wouldn't happen for many billions of years: seemingly a long time for the loan of all of its mass and energy to go unpaid. Furthermore, those who support inflation theory espouse, not a closed universe, but a flat one, so the zero-net-energy idea appears to conflict with their own beliefs. It would seem that inflation has also failed to solve the other old problems of BBT. To state that inflation smoothed the universe by stretching out irregularities of the first instant of the BB, but left just enough of them to provide the "seeds" for the later formation of galaxies may be a matter of faith, not science. To state that inflation at orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light solved the horizon problem that had been attributed to the high rate of expansion of pre-inflation BBT, may be illogical. To state that inflation, that is said to result in an exponential expansion of somewhere between 10 to the 50th power (Guth's original inflation)(3) and 10 to the 1,000,000th power (Linde's new inflation),(4) would cause anything greater than a minutely low average density, far less than the critical density required for a flat BB universe, seems difficult to accept. Inflation theorists postulate a universe that expanded to unimaginable size, and thus claim that we can observe only a tiny portion of it. But they continue to tell us that quasars can be seen to within a small percentage of the distance to the BB; two very conflicting ideas. In addition, some BB cosmologists who have accepted inflation, continue to describe events essentially in accordance with the typical chronology of pre-inflation BB, having a linear decrease in temperature (energy) and a linear increase in size as functions of time, without consideration of the appropriate changes necessary to accommodate inflation. In addition to its apparent failure to solve pre-inflation BB problems, it would seem that inflation has introduced some new problems and complexities. As an example of new complexities, multiple domains(4) (multiple worlds or universes)(52,53) are introduced, and with them, massive walls. But domain walls, along with magnetic monopoles(3,4) (a theoretical problem of early inflation theory), are dispersed by the greatly increased exponential expansion of new inflation theory, to the edge of our domain where they no longer trouble us. These are just a couple of the many fanciful ideas that have resulted from speculation about such things as grand unified theories (GUTs) and a theory of everything (TOE) in the quest for support of BBT. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This paper explores the idea that this is the wrong question - that that is not how the Universe got here. The supposition that 'the Universe got here', presupposes it came from somewhere else. This leads to an obvious infinite regress of immanent causation. If physicists were to seriously study the metaphysics of causality perhaps they would stop asking these nonsensical questions which would help them to limit their absurd conclusions! Instead, we explore the idea of whether there is anything in the laws of physics that would prevent the Universe from creating itself. Because spacetimes can be curved and multiply connected, general relativity allows for the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs). Thus, tracing backwards in time through the original inflationary state we may eventually encounter a region of CTCs giving no first-cause. The 'Laws of [Modern] Physics' are man-made mathematical abstractions which have no recourse to causality. They are useless to answer such an absurd and erroneous line of questioning. Some specific scenarios (out of many possible ones) for this type of model are described. For example: an inflationary universe gives rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself. Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own mother. The first law of computing, "Garbage in = garbage out".


	Re: Closed Timelike Curves posted on 09/08/2003 2:05 AM by Dmarksvr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
To the person critizing my earlier statements.... If you read my posts more carefully i think you'll see that i did say that i was open to recieving new evidence that would cause me to revise my beliefs, in fact i do this all the time, i read, and think, and anytime i learn something new, or someone brings up an intresting point that i can't find a flaw in or seems to atleast in part be right, i throw out what now seems wrong, add the new that seems right, and try to incorporate the new info into my over all belief sturcture adjusting it here and there to make the whole thing as self consistant as possible. And then try very hard to be aware of all the new implications my revised theory will have on who i am, and on the way i live my life. What i try very hard NOT to do is force the implications of those beliefs onto anyone else. Its like if you believe stripping is wrong, ok fine your entitled to that opinion and no one is forcing you to go, but say i believe that there is nothing wrong with it, but here you are saying its wrong and perhaps if you had the power to stop me from going to the strip club you would, but what right would you have to do so? it seems to me you would have none, just like i would have no right to force you to go to a strip club. In our world it might be impossible to do things that way always, or at the very least it might be impractical, but shouldn't we try to respect each others positions as much as possible, atleast till the point it become impractical to do so, or if opinions on what is right or wrong are split nearly 50/50 isn't it best to error on the side of caution and personal freedom and allow whatever it is, as long as participation is optional for those who might not agree. is Someone not liking something enough of a reason to not allow it for anyone regardless of those peoples likes or dislikes? Anyways I never said that your belief that there is no god is wrong, i just said that i didn't understand it, because of the lack of evidence one way or another. You might make that same arguement against me, but if i remember what you wrote and what i wrote correctly i think you'll see that i noted that i chose to believe what i do based on my interpretation of what evidence there is and my own experiences, where as you just stated that god didnt exist in a way that implied that it just wasnt your belief based on available evidence but that it was a fact, not just to you but for everyone else also, whether they liked it or not, and its that i was taking issue with, i apologize if i wasn't clear before. Anyways i more then welcome an exchange of ideas, in fact i crave it, but finding people who can discuss such issues seriously and intelligently has been difficult, and often people dispute me yet offer little or no reason for disagreeing, which i suppose they have every right to do but its frustrating still. i always try to offer as much evidence or at the very least explain my logic or line of thinking to support a particular view, and all to often someone will say "No your wrong" which i'm completely open to that possibility, but when asked, rarely can they give me a reason why i'm wrong. At this point i'd be so happy if some one just said i think your wrong i dont know how your wrong but thats just my gut feeling, i'd gladly accept that, hell i'd thank them, but almost everyone just says...nope your wrong, and thats it, no justification of their position at all. I think you also said that i had just chosen to believe in god for no real reason, but i did say that in my mind that is the direction that the evidence and my own personal experiences had pointed me in. And if anyone is intrested... In a nut shell, i believe that the system/universe/multiverse(what i call god), whatever you wanna call it, just is. And that time, and motion and whatnot are just perceptual illusions, a side effect of our limited perspective. And if time doesnt exist, then neither does causation, percieved cause and effect for all intent and purposes does, but in actuality i posit that it is just an illusion. Imagine a painting of some scene if you will. to a speck of paint the picture would look very different, at small enough scales you might even percieve what seems to be motion of the atoms, but if you were to be an outside observer looking at this painting, all you would see is the over all picture, no actual motion, no arrow of time, nothing, it would just be a pattern composed of different colors of paint, and no matter what the particular scene that is painted, its still just all paint. Or we can go with water as an example. A wave on the ocean seems to move, but there is no difference between the wave and the surrounding water, its still just all water, its still just an ocean, and there is only ocean. The ocean just is and we are waves. Parts of the ocean move, or change with what we would call time, but this hypothetical ocean as a whole doesnt go anywhere, there is no "where" for it to go, because there is only ocean. And once again, if you were a wave, or a water molecule at that scale you might percieve what we call motion, but if you could somehow step outside the system and look down on it from a good distance you would just see ocean, no individual molocules of water, and if your high enough, you wouldn't even see waves. Im not sure this adequately explains why i dont view time as real, other then it is a real illusion, its a very hard idea to put into words. if time exists it does so as just another manifestation of the organizational patterns that make up our hypothtical ocean and its waves, or our paintings picture, but its all still ocean, or paint, take your pick...and it just IS, noting more, nothing less. Actually maybe its more accurate to say that the existance of time, or motion is relative to your perpective, for us they are very real things, but for the system as whole or from a perpective outside the system they dont exist because they would not be noticed. from the perspective of the system as a whole it just is, or it isnt, and from outside also, you would either see the system or you wouldn't. And even if its all relative, if the perpective of the system as a whole doesnt include a perception of time, then for the system as a whole time doesnt exist, and causation along with it. we have to deal with our perpective, for us time and motion are real, but if your intrested in the truth, if thats your goal you have to acknowledge that from another perspective these things may not exist and that reality is just as real as the one your percieving, if you wanna get closer to your goal of truth that is. I'm sorry but it IS all relative, and its best to just deal with that as best we can (atleast thats my opinion, and its only an opinion) or atleast acknowledge it, unless one is content to be ignorant, which once again they may have that right, but do they have the right to force the implications of that ignorance onto me? i hope not. Dave


	Re: Closed Timelike Curves posted on 09/08/2003 2:12 AM by subtillioN	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
I find it odd that you are replying to me yet I have never criticized your posts and your statements do not seem to apply to me at all. Just whom is this post directed to?


	Re: Closed Timelike Curves posted on 09/08/2003 2:22 AM by Dmarksvr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Sorry man, its to a guy who posted above somewhere, its late, i'm tired i just replied to the last post i saw, doesnt the newest post end up on the bottom anyways? Dave


	Re: Closed Timelike Curves posted on 09/08/2003 2:31 AM by subtillioN	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
It's certainly alright. I am just trying to clear things up a bit. The answer to your question is no, this forum is a bit different as each thread contains subthreads and your reply goes to the bottom of the subthread which could be anywhere in the middle of the thread. Just click on the reply link on the post you are replying to.


	Re: Closed Timelike Curves posted on 09/08/2003 10:51 AM by hughbristic	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
What i try very hard NOT to do is force the implications of those beliefs onto anyone else. How is saying "You are wrong" forcing you to believe or do anything? On the contrary, implying that criticism of your beliefs is akin to some form of opression is itself a pretty lame way of stiffling debate and disagreement. I could say "I believe you are wrong" if that would make you feel less threatened, but, to me "I believe" is implied. I believe what I say is true as does everyone and I find such mincing of words disingenuous. Hugh


	Re: Closed Timelike Curves posted on 09/10/2003 1:26 AM by Dmarksvr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Your missing my point i think. Believing is fine. critizising(in the sense that your pointing out flaws in logic, or mistakin premisses,fact based critisism, not just random bashing of ideas) is fine, but saying something like, i believe pornography, or abortion or whatever is wrong, and then (and this is the important part) actively trying to prevent people from being able to do those things(no matter what those individual personal beliefs are), thats wrong usually, in my opinion(there are exceptions to every rule). Saying the bible says this (insert whatever) is wrong and a sin, and people who do or believe so will go to hell, and i'm going to stop them or punish them if i can, thats wrong. What right do you have to dictate the actions of others based on your beliefs when those people do not share those beliefs, and are equally entitled to their beliefs as you are? Id even argue that making the judgment they are going to hell is wrong, or atleast voicing that. Saying something like, well if there is a hell, you might be going Society needs to work out what is the most fair for everyone then try to implement that, in my opinion. For the most part that is how our system is set up to work, but the trouble is sometimes you get more people in favor of a particular solution in a position to make a decision on what will be done, and instead of trying to figure out what is the most fair for everyone concerned these people will use their power and push for not whats most fair for all but for whats most what THEY want, when their job is supposed to be giving us, all of us what we want atlest as best they can. Or often we take this black and white stance, where something is wrong no matter what the circumstances and/or its equally wrong in every circumstance. I believe that we need to admit that each circumstance is unique and everything should be evaulated on a case by case basis, atleast as much as possible before doing so becomes completely impractical. As it is now all to often we are just taking the easiest approach and many are treated injustly. Maybe the only fair system is one that has atleast the chance of being equally unfair to everyone, but i think with vigilance we can do better then that taking action based on the circumstances of each situation and applying the best most objective judgment as possible. Again thats just my opinion. Another point i was trying to make or atleast meant to, i think i may have forgotten it entirely in my other posts. is i find it disappointing that we are so judgmental in general. You have a person who believes one thing, and when that person finds out that someone else doesn't believe the same they very often automatically make a judgement about the other person, usually a negative one. For instance, Many christians (not all, maybe not most) once you tell them your not christian they will automatically look down on you, suddenly your not a good person, or a fool, or misguided, all sorts of things. There are many other examples like this that happen all the time. Maybe someone is republican, and your not, they tell you this, and you automatically make all these assumptions based on what you think being republican means, you make judments about that persons beliefs, lifestyle, morality, character, all sorts of things, and you do it all with barely anything to go on, and its completely possible that you could be misinformed, but few ever consider that possiblility. yet these judgments will directly effect how you treat that person, whether your inclined to be there friend, or treat them with more or less respect. Its just my opinion, that we should all be more careful what we choose to believe and more conscience about the implications those beliefs will have on how we act towards others, and in general how we live. Hypocracy and injustice is often the result of failure to this. Basically i'm for a judge not lest the be judged kinda life style, Or at the very least i believe we should be more careful about what judgments we do make, because all to often those judgments have implications that go beyond just the individual who makes them, they ripple through out society however subtlely. Basically i'm for people not just taking more responsibility for their actions but also for their beliefs and opinions, and as i mentioned earlier i think when society as a whole is fairly divided on an issue i believe its best to error on the side of personal freedom, and that basically we should try to respect everyones opinions and beliefs and allow them to act freely as long as their actions dont directly effect us in a negative way(Not liking something or being simply annoyed by something isnt in my opinion enough of a negative impact, when dealing with the possibility of denying freedom to another) More and more we are legislating safety and morality, ect... instead of letting people make their own decisions about those things. An example might be safetly belt laws, why punish people for not wearing one, the only person they put at risk is themselves. Yes their friends and family will be upset but shouldn't it be the individuals right to decide if thats enough for them to buckle up or not? Or sueing a video game maker beacause some kid played the game which contained violence then went out and shot some people, that person was responsible for their own actions (not the game company) or so mentally unstable that in order to be sure that nothing in society would trigger such behavior in that person we would have to create a society in which it was impossible or atleast improbable that anyone could ever be exposed to something violent, or that might even have the remotest possibility of provoking violence, which simply is not practical, or probably even possible. Maybe you take issue with my particular examples but i think the logic is sound in general and that if you tried you could come up with your own examples you do agree with that are right along the same line of logic. Finally i would just suggest that we all try to be more responsible and better people, we may never be perfect but its almost certain that each of us could be better, But how many are sincerely trying? Dave Disclamer, even if not specifically noted in this post, everything that is said is meant as an opinion or belief and none of it is intended to be stated as if it were an absolute fact.


	Re: Closed Timelike Curves posted on 09/10/2003 1:36 AM by Dmarksvr	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
typo correction i meant to say "saying something like "if there is a hell you might be going if you do that or believe that"... is ok, because your not making a definative judgment or stating it as an absolute fact. Taking the time to do such things may seem like a hassle but i've found that when practiced it soon becomes second nature and happens almost unconsciencely now, and that while i may not always pull it off, more often then not i can, and that the effort has made me a better,more open, less judgemental person. Again, just an opinion :) Dave


	Re: Closed Timelike Curves: COSMOS QUEST posted on 12/02/2006 7:40 AM by vidyardhi nandur	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
COSMOS QUEST ! SUBJECTS UNDER DISCUSSION:BIG_BANG, EVOLUTION, Mind-set regions, OPEN-end Quest The Big-Bang as it stands today cannot inspire mankind. One needs to search other routes. The Black-hole psychology helps none. The answers to many general questions are answered in the books by author that include Bio-Energy Aura , links to Universe, Yoga and Spinal Column, Universe projection, Cosmos in dimensions. Each book has several projections that answer queries easily that make relevant to search further for interlinks. It is not necessary that one needs to be a scientist, but basic VALUES in HUMAN LIFE need to be preserved with the spirit of advancement through conscious knowledge and interaction. The projections help comprehension as bridge between Science of Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, Consciousness, Electro-magnetic sensitivities, Cosmic Function of the Universe etc. Nobel Laur. ALFVEN opened this quest to search EAST-WEST Interaction The author, Vidyardhi Nanduri has undertaken to write detailed Projections and Cosmos Questions through Books:http://cosmologyvedas.blogspot.com/ http://in.geocities.com/vidyanand1941 Multiple Universe Concepts are introduced through two articles: Cosmology review.com-1999-2000 Presently VISION DOCUMENT SERIES I cover up to ~10 ^3 Light years beyond DARK MATTER...June 2005 SERIES II cover HEART OF THE UNIVERSE ~10^5-~10^6 Light Years .This enlightens the Transition to Expanding Universe in COSMOS and Multi Universe Concept.Presently ready. Nov 2006 Series III cover DYNAMIC UNIVERSE - Space-HST-NASA -ESO data etc generally within 10^8 LY. Some of the data confirm the above approach adopted by me.. The search is up to 10^9 LY below COSMIC POT - The Universe is projected ~10^9 LY to 10^12 LY EVOLUTION NEEDS TO CATCH UP IN SEVERAL STEPS. HUMANITY NEED TO SURVIVE ON THIS EARTH PLANET. An appeal to all scientists: Hawking says humans must colonise other planets..Reuter news 30 Nov 2006 Cosmology Scientists are respected by all societies for advancement of Science.However, escapism is not the Avenue. Earth Planet supports life! Define the Balanced Nature conditions ? Do not ignore Human Being Sensitivities and Life Divine Function. Remember PRIDHVI-EARTH REGION IS CONNECTED TO 100 AU. The overtones should not allow Bombardment of Earth planet in the name of Big-Bang or Nuclear explosions. While Science needs to catch-up with Philosophy and Nature, LET US SAVE EARTH PLANET BY ALL MEANS. Vidyardhi Nanduri Cosmology World Peace


	Re: Biocosm: The New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life is the Architect of the Universe posted on 09/19/2003 3:28 PM by amrito	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Dott. Amrit Sorli Dott. Kusum Sorli Osho Miasto Institute Podere San Giorgio 16 53012, Chiusdino (SI), Italy spacelife@libero.it EVOLUTION AS AN UNIVERSAL PROCESS Abstract Greene emphasis that gravity conserves entropy, that the total entropy of the universe sums to zero. From this point of view evolution can be understood as an universal negentropic process that evolves to the zero entropy of the universe. Key words: evolution, entropy, universe, Greene Introduction In his book "The Elegant Universe" Greene says: Gravity conserves entropy; for example, in the cosmic gravitational collapse of the "Big Crunch", the total heat loss and entropy of the Universe is reversed; in such a case, the total entropy of the Universe sums to zero. Gravity replaces positive spatial entropy with a metrically equivalent positive temporal entropy; spatial expansion is reduced because it funds the temporal component of the total entropy equation (1). In the universe the entropy of matter is continuously increasing and the entropy of life is continuously decreasing. The total entropy of the universe sums to zero. From this point of view the evolution of life can be seen as an universal negentropic process that is continuously developing towards a total entropy of the universe. The relationship between evolution life as and the total entropy of the universe that sums to zero can be described using the following equation: Y = f (X) Y stands for the evolution of life X stands for a total entropy of the universe that sums to zero entropy diagram According to this understanding evolution of life is a continuation of the evolution of the universe. Several experiments supports this idea. They show that functions of living organism is directly related to the cosmic gravitational field. It seems that gravity play an essential role in the evolution of life on the Earth. As gravitational field is the same throughout the entire universe, one could predict that gravitational field play same role also on the planets that are similar to the our. Life could also have developed there. Materials and Methods Spaceflight induces a cephalad redistribution of fluid volume and blood flow within the human body and space motion sickness, which has a problem during first few days of spaceflight, could be related to these changes in fluid status and in blood flow of the cerebrum and vestibular system (2). In weightlessness there is a decreased activity of spinal ganglia neurons of the hypothalamic nuclei producing arginine, vasopressin and growth hormone releasing factor. Structural changes of the somatosensory cortex and spinal ganglia suggest a decreased afferant flow to the somatosensory cortex in microgravity. The results characterise the mechanisms of structural adaptation to a decreased afferant flow in microgravity by the neurons in the hemisphere cortex and brain stem nuclei. So, under microgravity there is a neuron hypoactivity (3). Microgravity has a direct influence on bone fracture healing because of poor production of bone callus in microgravity: there is an increase volume of osteoid and a decrease in the number and activity of osteoblasts (4). Experiment carried out at the University of Lubiana, Slovenia in 1987-1988 with Californian worms (Latin name is: Lumbricus Teresticus) shows that the weight of living Californian Worms greater than of the same dead ones; gravitational force of the cosmic space is stronger on the living worms than on the same dead ones (5). Research done by Penrose and Hameroff suggest that the force of quantum gravity acting on the mass of neurones within the brain may be responsible for the emergence of consciousness. The process is fundamentally related to the influence of quantum gravity on microtubule networks within the neurones (6,7) . Discussion The idea that evolution of life on the Earth is a part of a wider universal process is supported by the discovery of basic organic molecules necessary for the development of life in the whole of observable space (8). This means that universal space is in the phase of chemical evolution which on Earth and similar planets has continued into biological evolution. Life is the latest part of the evolution of the universe. Kompanichenko says: Approximately four billion years ago, living systems appeared on Earth and formed the superstructure over the lower organized geochemical systems. The simplest organisms were characterized by availability of unique mechanism that permitted them to transform actions from outside world and to return strengthened /expedient counteraction back into the environment. Giving an energetic profit from this exchange, living beings in fact extract free energy from the environment and accumulated it. The forms of life, which lost the ability for the active extraction, in the long run were eliminated by natural selection. Using one more unique quality - regular self-renovation, living system step-by-step complicated and transformed the planetary medium into an environment. The extraordinary complicated human civilization is the top of this process. Both animate and inanimate natural systems of the universe are interrelated by the deepest universal processes and regularities. This shows unity of nature and allows us to support the opinion that life should be the widespread phenomenon in the cosmos (9). Krall says: There are some hints that life could have been brought to earth from elsewhere in our solar system or even galaxy. Life tends towards more complexity but Homo Sapiens is not the pride of creation but rather an accident in evolution. Humans may disappear as they have come but evolution will continue. Life as such is not an accident but a function of our universe (10). Conclusion The main impulse for the development of life is a total entropy of the universe that sums to zero. All over the universe matter has an intrinsic tendency to evolve into life and then into conscious species. In the evolution on the earth human consciousness is the phenomenon that is closest to the zero entropy of the universe. Best Wishes, Dott. Amrit Sorli, Dott. Kusum Sorli References: 1. Greene B. (1999), B. The Elegant Universe. W.W. Norton & Co., 448 + xiii pp. 2. US Army (1993), Madigan Army Medical Centre, Tacoma, Washington ' Cerebral blood velocity and other cardiovascular responses to 2 days head down tilt. Journal of Applied Physiology, 74 (1): 319-25 3. Krasnov IB.(1994), Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia. 'Gravitational neuromorphology', Advances in Space Biology and Medicine 4:85-110, 4. Durnova G.N., Burkovskaia TE. Voraotnikova E.V., Kaplanskil A.S., Arustamov O.V., (1991),'The effect of weightlessness on fracture healing of rats flown on Biosatellite Cosmos 2044', Kosmicheskaia Biologiia I Aviakosmosmicheskaia Meditsina 25 (5):29-33, 5. Sorli (2001) Additional Roundness of Space-Time and Unknown Vacuum Energies in Living Organisms, Frontier Perspectives, Vol.10, Nr. 2 6. Penrose, Roger (1994), 'Shadows of the Mind' (Oxford) pp 377-391. 7. Hameroff, Stuart (1994), 'Quantum Coherence in Microtubules: A Neural Basis for Emergent Consciousness?' , Journal of Consciousness Studies Vol.1, No.1, pp 91-118 8. Stephen F. Mason (1991), Chemical Evolution: Origin of the Elements, Molecules, and Living Systems, Oxford University Press 1991 9. Kompanichenko (2003), Distinctive Properties of Biological Systems: The All-Around Comparison with Other Natural Systems, Frontier Perspectives, Vol. 12, Num. 1, Temple University, Philadelphia 10. Stephan Krall (2002), Life and Light, Network, Journal Of Scientific And Medical Network, Number 78


	Re: Biocosm: The New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life is the Architect of the Universe posted on 10/20/2005 11:05 AM by Dexter	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Does nobody understand the concepts of Infinity and Probability? To the most basic understanding of infinity, our beloved Universe is so big (dimensionally) that its boundaries are infathomable to our current concept of distance. (The Universe is big, very big!). In addition to this, any understanding of probability will tell you that if you wait long enough all events can and will happen. Thus in this infitely big universe, which is calculated to be +/- 8 Billion years old, to me it is simple to understand that Life, inteligent life was bound to happen at some time or other. We'e just lucky to be in the right place at the right time to be the beneficiaries of this probability. The destiny of this life and the development of thought emminating from this intelligence will always be linear. (At the very lest, faster, cheaper, variantion and modification of any idea will always be possible, Thus no singularity of thought) Even extinction of our species will only hand the mantle over to some future intellegence Thus No God, No magic and no end. Am I alone!


	Re: Biocosm: The New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life is the Architect of the Universe posted on 10/22/2005 4:24 PM by Extropia	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
The book Biocosm is best thought of as 'where Lee Smolin's "Life of the Cosmos" left off, this picks up'. Smolin suggested that the incredibly fine-tuned laws that allow complex life to emerge could have evolved. Everytime a star collapses into a black hole, that triggers the birth of a new Universe which has physical laws slightly different to the 'Mother Universe'. If those laws work against the production of black holes, they are selected against. Smolin believes that the conditions that are conducive to black holes are, coincidentally, the sort of conditions that life needs to thrive. The Biocosm idea is that future life will work out a way to drive this mechanism via some kind of technology. So whereas today the likes of Craig Ventor are trying to coax inanimate matter into becoming 'life', Type III civliztions might try and coax matter into becoming a new Universe. Possibly, they might have reasons that go beyond 'we're building a universe just because we can'. Seth Lloyd and Y. Jack Ng, for example, have suggested that black holes might be used as incredibly powerful computing systems. Louis Crane believes the motivation will be an energy crisis: 'At some point in the future, any civilization will face the probability of perishing from lack of free energy. In principle, black holes may convert matter into energy via Hawking radiation forever with perfect efficiency'. So Universes could be the waste products produced from post-singularity computers or power stations. So Biocosm is ok so long as God is put in His rightful place. In The Beginning, Universes lived for femtoseconds, constantly rebounding back into 'nothing' (see quantum mechanics for a definition of nothing...it ain't nothting). Each time they rebounded, the laws were changed slightly until black holes could be formed. Now, the rules of natural selection favoured universes that promoted black hole growth and, co-incidentally, they had what it took to harbour intelligent life. And intelligent life realised it too could create Universes if only it could wield the capability to make black holes... I think the Biocosm idea is interesting, if only because it can be proven wrong. Subtillion has done a pretty good job of doing just that in other posts. I used to think inflation, black holes, dark matter were water-tight cases..but there is a reasonable chance they are wrong, and I think this would be a major blow to the 'black hole singularities inflate into Universes' ideas of Smolin etc.


	illogical posted on 10/22/2005 10:04 PM by codesimian	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
inteligent life was bound to happen at some time or other. We'e just lucky to be in the right place at the right time to be the beneficiaries of this probability. Its not luck. Intelligent life is always at the right location to observe intelligent life. Or did you expect intelligent life to be on planet X and the only intelligent life to observe it be on planet Y? Illogical.


	Re: illogical posted on 10/23/2005 12:43 PM by w1ndfall	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
If not luck, then explain the mechanism.


	Re: illogical posted on 10/23/2005 2:01 PM by purpose	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
If not luck, then explain the mechanism. You (like many others) seem to be looking for a finite and singular cause for existence. This is further complicated by our natural tendency to assume that what exists in full is well described by what we have so far experienced to exist. These assumptions are flawed. The idea of "first cause" is illogical and indeed impossible. The only logical explanation for existence is that: a) It has always existed b) It is a continuum of relationships with infinite scope and depth. c) Complexity and simplicity exist at ALL levels and are in fact the same thing. d) The universe allows for intelligence and where that intelligence exists it will grow / expand. e) That non-existence is a subjective (finite) aspect of existence, the objective aspect is infinite. The question of whether or not it is possible our universe was "created" by intelligent agents is simply answered when you stop looking at our corner of infinity as being all that exists. The omniverse is infinite (in scope and depth), the answer is obvious when you change from asking what exists to pondering what can not exist in an infinite omniverse.


	Re: illogical posted on 10/23/2005 2:24 PM by codesimian	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
The first life ever anywhere happens on some planet. They look around and see life. They think they're lucky to be on that planet at that exact time in all of the universe. Most of the other parts of the universe dont contain life. Nobody is there to see it doesnt contain life. Nobody notices. Its not luck that life is always at the location of life.


	Re: illogical posted on 10/23/2005 5:01 PM by purpose	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
The first life ever anywhere happens on some planet. They look around and see life. They think they're lucky to be on that planet at that exact time in all of the universe. The above is so simple as to be useless in addressing the considerations raised in this thread. When talking about the Omniverse there was no "first life ever" nor will there be a "last life ever" as this type of thinking is incompatible with absolute reality. Ignorant life forms "feel lucky" because they are ignorant of the greater universe and thus the possible sources of their finite existence. Most of the other parts of the universe dont contain life. Nobody is there to see it doesn't contain life. Nobody notices. You are speaking from a position of ignorance about what we do not know. You assume intelligence is limited to the characteristics of intelligence as we know them, limited by the configuration of this small speck of dirt we call earth and within the limited context our intelligences imagination. Its not luck that life is always at the location of life. This statement is absurd. If you replace the word "life" with intelligence it would read. "It's not luck that intelligence is always at the location of intelligence." Intelligence is a form of complexity, your comments make no arguments for against the issues raised here. You might as well of said: "Complexity requires complexity to be observed", of course it does, but complexity exists at all levels, you only see the "emergent intelligence" where it interfaces with your own. This reductionist view point that wants to reduce all things into mundane non-intelligence "substance" is ill fated. There is no evidence what so ever suggesting the more we reduce "things" the simpler reality will become, complexity and thus intelligence exists at all scopes and depths. Every mountain in a mountain range may LOOK simple and uniform when viewed from a distance, but I assure you the amount of detail and complexity existing on/within each of those mountains is far more vast than it appears.


	Forer Effect posted on 12/16/2005 12:08 AM by ZeptoGator	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
A couple points to reiterate: 1) our perception of the universe is flawed 2) we are tryng to solve an equation that has too many variables and not enough "givens". Basically, not enough information, so we are at this point scientifically guessing. 3) we are driven to solve this unsolvable equation by the quest for truth, the fear of the unknown, or just out of sheer fascination. This leads me to believe that evolutionary theory and other protosciences and pseudosciences are elaborate products of the Forer effect (or Barnum effect). We find and see only that which supports our views. No matter how objective we may think we are, humans are flawed and subjective and discriminatory on a subconscious or unconscious level. I don't think that genes or universes are "selfish", it is just what some of us want to believe in our feeble attempts to know the unknowable and come to a point in our psyche that says, "ok, that's close enough, I can live with it, now I will go on with my life". Good luck!


	Re: Biocosm: The New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life is the Architect of the Universe posted on 12/19/2005 12:10 AM by psients	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
This preface alone is pseudoscience. Without coming out and simply saying right how this "hypothesis" could be tested or falsified, he has said very little in the form of progress. Instead, he went on about how scientific revolutions work and how he wants to be like Darwin. I'd be interested to hear what the actual ideas are. The hypothesis suggests that the cosmos is "selfish" in the same metaphorical sense that evolutionary theorist and ultra-Darwinist Richard Dawkins proposed that genes are "selfish." Under my theory, the cosmos is "selfishly" focused upon the overarching objective of achieving its own replication. To use the terminology favored by economists, self-reproduction is the hypothesized "utility function" of the universe. Well I'm an economist and I can tell you the way he uses that last phrase is complete nonsense. In basic microeconomic theory, "utility," or general satisfaction from consumption, is a function of the prices of available goods, quantity consumed, and income. The universe has no functional equivalents.


	Re: Biocosm: The New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life is the Architect of the Universe posted on 05/25/2006 12:56 AM by psients	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
Wow, no responses yet. Did I say something right? ;)


	Re: Biocosm: The New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life is the Architect of the Universe posted on 12/08/2006 8:17 AM by eldras	[Top] [Mind·X] [Reply to this post]
yes yes the isues are no containable. To sat =y there is an ultimate theory of the cosmos' destinyt possible is not going to be nodded to. there are lods of assumptions in it. a theory must be capable of being falsified, i agree, in the scietific method. copmplexity really means too complex for Man. My own dialectic as you know is to defer it to SAI when it comes and do what i have to now by way of chores. Bhudism talks about making genetle inroads of progressive enlightenment and caopability, and my experience that the patient worker builds civilisation and Man's future. Unlike Tipler i dont see and end point to the universe. i doubt the cosmos parameters are all there is, even conceding multidimensions. Parameters generally are to be breached of course, but also to be used. or else there is just grey gue

Brain Archive

Introduction