Origin > The Singularity > It Takes a Giant Cosmos to Create Life and Mind
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0690.html

Printable Version
    It Takes a Giant Cosmos to Create Life and Mind
by   James N. Gardner

A new book, The Intelligent Universe, proposes that the universe might end in intelligent life, one that has acquired the capacity to shape the cosmos as a whole.


To be published in The Intelligent Universe, New Page Books, February 2007. Published on KurzweilAI.net Feb. 2, 2007.

There is a time machine clearly visible right outside your front door. It's easy to see--in fact, it's impossible to overlook--although its awesome powers are generally ignored by all but a discerning few. The unearthly beauty, the ineffable grandeur, and the ingenuity of construction of this time machine are humbling to every human being who makes an effort to probe into the enigma of its origin and the mystery of its ultimate destiny. The time machine of which I speak is emphatically not of human origin. Indeed, a few venturesome scientists are beginning to entertain a truly incredible possibility: that this device is an artifact bequeathed to us by a supreme intelligence that existed long, long ago and far, far away. All knowledgeable observers agree that the scope of its stupendous powers and the sheer delicacy of its miniscule moving parts seem nothing short of miraculous.

A second amazing but incontrovertible fact confronts those trained in the science of cosmology: We human beings are living our daily lives in the midst of extraterrestrial entities. These entities are everywhere--in the air we breathe, in the food we eat, in the ground beneath our feet, and inside our bodies. These extraterrestrials have made an incredible journey from the venue of their birth to reach planet Earth. Their epic migration, spanning millions of light-years, dwarfs the fictional interstellar voyages of the starship Enterprise. They are the real star trekkers, with more mileage on their odometers than we are capable of imagining. And perhaps most astonishing, we could not possibly survive without their constant presence, and the unfailing exercise of their special powers.

Could the existence of this purported time machine be anything but outrageous science fiction? And how could there be extraterrestrials among us that we have never noticed? Surely not even an inebriated television producer would find these ideas sufficiently credible to weave into an X-Files plot!

Yet I can assure you that both propositions are correct. Indeed, they are indisputable.

The time machine is the universe itself. We see its local features every night in the starry sky above us. The firmament we observe is not a picture of the stars and galaxies as they exist today, but rather a kind of cinematic image of our corner of the cosmos as it existed years ago--in the case of the great galaxy Andromeda, millions of years ago. Because starlight travels through the immensity of interstellar and intergalactic space at a finite pace, and because of the inconceivable vastness of the cosmos, we look backward in time with every glance at the nighttime sky.

With powerful spectacles to aid our vision--massive instruments such as the telescopes that dot the peak of Mauna Kea in Hawaii and the Hubble Space Telescope--we can extend our gaze incredibly far back into the past, indeed virtually to the moment of the Big Bang. And with even more sophisticated observational instruments, such as the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational- Wave Observatory (LIGO) and the space-based Big Bang Observer (BBO) that NASA hopes to deploy by 2025, there is hope that we will be able to glimpse the moment of cosmic creation itself--the very genesis of space and time.

What about those extraterrestrials? They are the atoms that combine to form the molecules from which our bodies and virtually everything else in our world and the solar system are made. These extraterrestrials were not, for the most part, born ex nihilo in the fireball of the Big Bang. Instead, they were hammered into existence in the forges of supernova explosions--rare conflagrations that release more energy in a flash than the normal output of the billions of ordinary stars in a typical galaxy.

Of all these extraterrestrial entities, the one with the most unusual birth story is carbon, the essential foundation of life as we know it. The peculiar process of stellar alchemy by which elemental carbon is coaxed into existence is so delicate and improbable that it prompted a giant of British astronomy, Sir Fred Hoyle, to utter the most famous and controversial remark of his storied career:

Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule?" Of course you would.... A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.1

Hoyle's remark is the inspiration for The Intelligent Universe. The book is the story of an idea, and the idea is quite simple: The best way to think about life, intelligence, and the universe is that they are not separate things, but are different aspects of a single phenomenon. To take liberties with a popular ballad, "We are the world, we are the people, and we are the universe." To state this proposition from the opposite perspective, the universe is coming to life and waking up through the processes of our lives and thoughts, and, very probably, through the lives and thoughts of countless other beings scattered throughout the cosmos.

One startling implication of this idea is that the true story of the origin of the human species is longer than the saga of terrestrial evolution conceived of by Charles Darwin and his intellectual progeny. Thanks to the discoveries of Hoyle and other cosmologists, it is now beyond dispute that the life history of humanity includes the entire history of the cosmos itself. Why? Because an inconceivably ancient and immense universe is needed to create even one species of minuscule living creatures on a single planet orbiting a nondescript star in the outer reaches of an ordinary galaxy.

If the cosmos were not so old and large, multiple generations of stars could not have formed, burned brightly for billions of years, and then blown themselves to pieces in titanic supernovae explosions, thereby synthesizing all the higher elements in the periodic table. Absent those elements (especially carbon and oxygen), there could be no life anywhere amid the countless galaxies that fill the universe.

A second implication of this concept is that if extraterrestrial life and intelligence should exist, it will inevitably be related to mankind. No, I am not talking about a government-suppressed history of alien visitation and cross-breeding, or even the slightly more plausible scenario outlined by Nobel laureate Francis Crick of directed panspermia.


Directed Panspermia

In Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature2 Nobel laureate Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, put forward a hypothesis about the origin of life on Earth that many of his scientific colleagues viewed as outlandish, even scandalous. The essence of Crick's scenario was that, contrary to Darwin's speculation that the first living things may have emerged spontaneously in a warm little pond, terrestrial life was deliberately seeded by an advanced alien race billions of years ago. Crick's ideas built on those of Swedish physicist Svante August Arrhenius, who suggested in the late 19th century that life did not get started on Earth, but was seeded by microorganisms drifting in from outer space under the gentle pressure of ambient starlight.

A perceived weakness of Arrhenius's theory--called simply panspermia, which translates literally as seeds everywhere--was that it was thought unlikely that spores or microorganisms could survive the harsh radiation of space for the decades, centuries, or even millennia that would be required for bacteria to slowly waft from even the nearest stars to our solar system.

Crick sought to remedy this weakness in Arrhenius's theory by proposing that the transplanted extraterrestrial microorganisms had actually traveled to Earth within the protective hull of an alien spaceship! As Crick put it:

Life started here when these organisms were dropped into the primitive ocean and began to multiply.3

Why would this obviously serious-minded and gifted scientist put forward such a seemingly eccentric proposal? Essentially, Crick was attempting to take seriously the logical implications of what he recognized as "the very high degree of [the] organized complexity [of living things] we find at every level, and especially at the molecular level."4 In order for even the simplest living creature to metabolize and reproduce, a vast array of incredibly complicated and interdependent molecular machinery must function, at a nanoscale level, with a degree of flawless precision that makes the operations of a Boeing 747 look downright primitive by comparison. As Crick put it in a candid and colorful remark that has become a key talking point for the Intelligent Design crowd:

The origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.5

But if life originated on an alien world and was later transported here by a race of intelligent aliens, then the probabilistic resources available to explain a random origin of life's organized complexity can be expanded exponentially. The major conceptual weakness of Crick's directed panspermia scenario is that it merely postpones the ultimate question: How did life originally get going, either on a distant planet or in that proverbial warm little pond right here on Earth?


I am asserting that wherever and however life and intelligence may exist elsewhere in the cosmos, it will have originated and evolved from a universally shared substrate: the chemical elements of the periodic table and the basic forces and parameters of physics. As far as anyone can tell, these elements, forces, and parameters appear invariant throughout the visible universe. They can be thought of as a kind of "deep DNA"--a universal genetic code inscribed far below the level of terrestrial genomes. At this fundamental level, everyone and everything that exists in the universe, whether animate or inanimate, is intimately related. And because all of this living and not-yet-living stuff owes its ultimate origin to a common genesis event (the Big Bang), we are all related in a family way. With apologies to Saint Francis of Assisi, we can confidently state that Earth's satellite truly is Sister Moon, and that the life-giving star 93 million miles away is genuinely Brother Sun.

A third implication of the concept is that because the vast preponderance of the lifetime of the universe lies in the distant future rather than in the past, the historical achievements of life and mind are meager foreshadowings of the starring role that intelligent life is likely to play in shaping the future of the cosmos. Indeed, this new way of looking at the intimate linkage of life, mind, and the cosmos suggests a novel way of thinking about the ultimate destiny of our universe.

Traditionally, scientists have offered two bleak answers to the profound issue of how the universe will end: fire or ice. The cosmos might end in fire--a cataclysmic Big Crunch in which galaxies, planets, and any life forms that might have endured to the end time are consumed in a raging inferno as the universe contracts in a kind of Big Bang, but in reverse.

Or the universe might end in ice--a ceaseless expansion of the fabric of spacetime in which the thin soup of matter and energy is eternally diluted and cooled. Under this scenario, stars wither and die, constellations of cold matter recede further and further from one another, and the vast project of cosmic evolution simply fades into quiet and endless oblivion.

The Intelligent Universe proposes a third possibility: that the universe might end in intelligent life. Not life as we know it, but life that has acquired the capacity to shape the cosmos as a whole, just as life on Earth has acquired the ability to shape the land, the sea, and the atmosphere. As Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson puts it:

Mind, through the long course of biological evolution, has established itself as a moving force in our little corner of the universe. Here on this small planet, mind has infiltrated matter and has taken control. It appears to me that the tendency of mind to infiltrate and control matter is a law of nature.6

My first book, Biocosm,7 was one long argument that the cosmos possesses a utility function (some value or outcome that is being maximized) and that the specific utility function of our cosmos is propagation of baby universes exhibiting the same life-friendly physical qualities as their parent-universe. Under this scenario, the mission of sufficiently evolved intelligent life in the universe is essentially to serve as a cosmic reproductive organ, spawning an endless succession of life-friendly offspring that are themselves endowed with the same reproductive capacities as their predecessors. The fact that our universe seems queerly hospitable to carbonbased intelligent life--an astronomically improbable oddity that many leading scientists have identified as the deepest mystery in all of science--emerges in the context of this hypothesis as a predictable outcome (a falsifiable retrodiction, in the jargon of science).


Falsifiable Retrodictions

Traditionally, scientists insist that new hypotheses generate falsifiable predictions of experimental results in order to qualify as genuine science. However, there are some fields of science--especially archaeology and cosmology, which involve events that occurred in the distant past or in physically inaccessible regions--that cannot generate predictions susceptible to laboratory testing. Although a few purists regard these fields as intrinsically unscientific, most scientists concede that it is appropriate for so-called "historical" sciences, such as geology, evolutionary biology, cosmology, paleontology, and archaeology to rely on retrodiction as an alternate means of testing a scientific hypothesis. A retrodiction essentially compares previously gathered observational evidence (for instance, the fossil record, in the case of evolutionary biology) with the implications of a scientific hypothesis (such as Darwinian natural selection). If the observational evidence agrees with the implications of the hypothesis, the hypothesis is said to retrodict the evidence. A detailed discussion of retrodiction as a tool for testing scientific hypothesis is contained in Appendix A.


Though The Intelligent Universe reprises some of the key themes of Biocosm, its primary objective is different. Unlike Biocosm, the purpose of this book is not to lay out a scientific hypothesis but rather to tell an extraordinary story--the story of the probable future of the universe. In telling this story, I am going to introduce you to some very unusual and interesting people.

You will meet a senior NASA official whose passion is investigating the probable impact on religion of the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence. You will encounter a computer scientist who is coaxing software to undergo a special kind of Darwinian evolution, thus becoming more adept and financially valuable over time. And you will meet a technology prophet who, in my view, is the true contemporary heir to Darwin's intellectual legacy.

You will also meet a fascinating cast of nonhuman players likely to have leading roles on tomorrow's cosmic stage. They include: (1) super-smart machines capable of out-thinking humans without breaking a sweat; (2) speedy and cost-efficient interstellar probes that will consist of nothing more substantial than elaborate software algorithms capable of "living" in the innards of alien computers they may encounter on far-off planets; and (3) intelligent extraterrestrials, which SETI researchers have not yet discovered but whose probable existence is strongly predicted by my Biocosm hypothesis.

The Intelligent Universe, then, is a kind of projected travelogue--an imagined future history--of the cosmic journey that lies ahead. The foundation for that projection is a vision of the deep linkage between the three ostensibly separate phenomena previously mentioned: the appearance of life, the emergence of intelligence, and the seemingly mindless physical evolution of the cosmos. In discussing these topics, the book will not only provide news dispatches from the frontiers of cosmological science, but also offer musings about the philosophical implications of emerging scientific insights for our self-image as a species.

Some skeptics and traditionalists will doubtless protest that such philosophizing is out of place in a book that seeks to chronicle the latest scientific thinking about the nature of the universe. In rebuttal, I offer the timeless words of Galileo:

Philosophy is written in this grand book--I mean the universe--which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the characters in which it is written.

In the spirit of Galileo, I invite you to gaze into this grand book--I mean our cosmos--and begin to learn the language and the characters in which it is written. As we shall see, the grand book is not only a tale of the past, but also a story about our tomorrows. Above all, it is a book that, carefully deciphered, foretells the incredible journey that intelligent life will make across the vast expanse of the cosmic future and the projected consummation of that voyage--the emergence of the biocosm.


1. Hoyle, Fred. "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering & Science magazine (November, 1981): 8-12, quoted in Owen Gingerich, "Foreword" to Simon Mitton, Conflict in the Cosmos: Fred Hoyle's Life in Science. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press, 2005: xi.

2. Crick, Francis. Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981.

3. Ibid., 15-16.

4. Ibid., 49.

5. Ibid., 88.

6. Dyson, Infinite in All Directions. New York: Harper Perennial Library, 1988; 118.

7. Gardner, James. Biocosm--The New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life Is the Architect of the Universe. Makawao, Maui, Hawaii: Inner Ocean Publishing, 2003.

 

© 2007 James Gardner

   
 

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

intelligent universes
posted on 02/03/2007 7:06 PM by townsendjd

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Hello:

Re: It Takes a Giant Cosmos to Create Life and Mind
posted on 02/04/2007 8:27 AM by doojie

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Certainly a visionary effort. But if intelligence is so interlined as to include the universe, then certainly consciousness would emerge as equally universal. Many years ago, I wrote a science magazine and proposed that we are the universe becoming aware of itself. The next month I saw an editorial by the editor of the magazine posting his discovery that we are the universe becoming aware of itself. I've seen that many times since, and I've gotten no credit.

Genetic algoprithms of replication are built on a tautology. "Since I must replicate myself in order to survive, I will replicate myself in order to survive". That becomes the meaning, drive, and force of the replicative algorithm. It has been the driving force of empires, religions, and governments.

The tautology is interrupted and the replicating drive is broken when the gene encounters difference, that bit of information that forces it to alter its reproductive strategy and adapt to different context. Scinetists are now speculating on a theory I was studying over 25 years ago, that the gene pool tends to resist change, leading to religious strategies to proselytize in order to maintain that resistance to change, but the original bit of information that altered the replicative algorithm was the virus. The virus, in its simple tautological process, caused an increase in intelligence within the gene pool. It did this in two basic fashions:
1. Entering the cells, it began to reproduce itself until it reached a threshold in which it challenged the integrity of the organism.
2. The organism usually began a "purge", cleansing itself of all possible external invaders. Failing this, it sent out antibodies to identify the virus and create interceptor cells to isolate it.

The result of these two functions actually improved the gene's chances, its intelligence, and its adaptive capabilities. The organism, having identified and registering the virus' identity in its "library", now had a greater range of defenses against the external environment. The organism's "knowledge" base was larger. The virus itself had become part of the cellular reproductive process, altering that process so that it became adaptive to the external environment.

Historians have long written that war creates evolutionary shortcuts that enhance our tenchology, intelligence, and awareness. It is likely that this came from those early viral invaders triggering all out response from organisms in the beginning.

So it is that consciousness develops as we attack enemies, but we first must recognize them as different. After we win(or lose) we absorb( or are absorbed by)the losers, who then affect our own culture in different ways. This creates diversity within the conquering system and provides for adaptation and speciation.

Or as the biblical book of James 4 says, war comes "from your lusts, that war in your members". A very apt description considering the above. War drives us to acknowledge difference and find reconciliation for that difference. the difference itself provides adaptive responses for our cultures.

From genes to cultures, its all part of one universal force, extending to the universe.

Re: It Takes a Giant Cosmos to Create Life and Mind
posted on 02/13/2007 12:06 PM by vidyardhi nandur

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Sub:archaeology and cosmology..searching common links
A very recent conference-Hindu Cosmology in consonance with Modern science and Temple structures- 10th-11 th,Feb, 2007 at Tirupati,S.India has brought Historians from Greek philosophy, Professors of Archealogy and Cosmology Scientists like me together to bring out the essence of Cosmic knowledge to University level students. The occassion is sponsored by SV University-Research- Library-Tirumala Tirupati Devastanams and Itihasa Sankalana Samiti (Preserving Indian Heritage and Culture)
I addreessed the Key talk-on Cosmology-Vedas Interlinks. Necessity Demand Structure as essential to further dialogues.

Re: It Takes a Giant Cosmos to Create Life and Mind
posted on 12/31/2007 1:57 AM by David D

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

"Many years ago, I wrote a science magazine and proposed that we are the universe becoming aware of itself. The next month I saw an editorial by the editor of the magazine posting his discovery that we are the universe becoming aware of itself. I've seen that many times since, and I've gotten no credit."

The blogger who wrote this could be my echo:

Many years ago (early 1960s) I wrote and proposed that the universe is becoming aware of itself in and through the body of mankind. Those were my words, almost exactly.

Many years ago, Carl Sagan wrote, "We are a way of the universe knowing itself."

So, on the brink of 2008, here we are knowing ourselves, knowing that we have thought the same goose-bumpy thought but did not know that each of us had thought the same thought. And now we do.

And since I know that this was the universe producing this thought in me (this body) in the 1960s, in 2008 I now resonate with the others of you who are also "sense organs" in the "body" of the universe....

Here's lookin' at you...at you...at...



Re: It Takes a Giant Cosmos to Create Life and Mind
posted on 05/28/2008 9:19 PM by marbles

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

if i understand this theory we can now apply it to computers and technology which are basically free of viruses, illnesses and war. so there are rarely any forces to stop this intelligence.

Credit where credit is due
posted on 02/05/2007 12:55 PM by hecook

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

No wonder you did not get creadit, doojie. I had that idea when I was a kid, and I am more than twice you age.

Re: Credit where credit is due
posted on 02/11/2007 3:35 PM by doojie

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

hecook, you're over 112 years old? You should teach Kurzweil about long life.

Re: Credit where credit is due
posted on 02/12/2007 6:30 AM by hecook

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Multiple reincarnation, I am told, is the secret.

Re: Credit where credit is due
posted on 12/14/2007 12:20 PM by Tussilago

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Actually, Friedrich von Schelling also had the idea in about 1795. He is usually credited for it. Oh yeah, I had it too as a kid.

Re: Credit where credit is due
posted on 12/15/2007 1:02 AM by PredictionBoy

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

that would make doojie over 100 years old, he's not that old.

auto-catalytic cosmos
posted on 02/11/2007 1:46 AM by Bradski

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Stuart Kauffman in "At Home in the Universe" describes how life might arise, in essence, mathematically via auto-catalytic sets. Kind of a proto-self organizing complexity theory.

I keep hearing about how improbable the physical constants are, perfectly set for life ... could it be instead that almost any odd random set of conditions (or at least many sets of conditions) are sufficient for this same kind of self organization to build complexity out of those initial conditions. In that Universe, the resulting creatures would be sure that the resulting network of parameters etc are just so improbably for the support of *their* kind of life, that they believe it must have been designed?

The workings of our cells are so improbably intricate that you can hardly blame the intelligent design crowd for being mesmerized by it ... yet with evolution and a touch of deeper and less understood laws of self organization, one can at least see that it's probable that it did spontaneously happen. I'm not so sure that the Universe is different.

Re: auto-catalytic cosmos
posted on 02/11/2007 4:23 PM by doojie

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

This improbability of random beginnings start what we know as life has been used by ID'ers, but even if their argument is correct, it still doesn't suggest Intelligent Design. What we do see is a form of intelligent evolution which adapts and forms increasing complexity. If things were designed, they would little resemble the kind of life forms we have today.

Yes, the beginnings of life as we know it would have to begin as it did, I suppose, but whatever began it, at whatever level of intelligence, cannot be discovered from research today. It is precisely because of millions of years of randomness shaping evolutionary change that we cannot discover a beginning intelligence or intent. Much like tracking the trajectory of billiard balls on a table into the past simply by looking at their positions as they exist now.

Re: auto-catalytic cosmos
posted on 02/28/2007 5:51 PM by someday69

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

intel-is from the start-to where we find ourselfs-
Yet my big let down,is the pain/suffering of the long crawl up the ladder of intel- to reach THE point were we about to enter=A.I.-with it's
pandora's box of possible bad endings....
What the hell kind'a intel-came up with this senario anyway--WE must be SOooo far down the chain of random happenings,,,That Well at least one out of ahundred will make it to enlightenment
the rest just go exteint....
Thats not a bin ev el ant God,,,its just a calculator/ink cu bater,,,,,

Me--in my better moments,I like to dream of a rightious loving God,,,,but I guess it's the little kid in me going--MOMY momy,,,I love you where are you???,,,,
If one out of the hundred who did make it to the singularity,,,many eons ago--or last year--Maybe there'll come by and help us past out critcal moment in our time,,,,
Other wise we are left to hopeing our smartest people can get our governments to listen to them
and to that I say---Good luck,,,,,

Re: It Takes a Giant Cosmos to Create Life and Mind
posted on 03/02/2007 7:39 PM by Bague2064

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I haven't read the book by Gardner yet but I'm looking forward to getting it pretty soon. I think Kurzweil and Gardner are quite correct in pointing out that discussions of cosmology fail to mention the role of intelligence at a cosmic level. However, I don't agree with Kurzweil's opinion that we, the human civilization, are the first ones.

Regarding the Fermi paradox I can make the following "falsifiable" hypothesis:

1) Current cosmology teaches us that the composition of the Cosmos is: 5 percent normal matter (including starts, planets, human brains, technology, etc), 25 percent dark matter and 70 percent dark energy.

2) Dark matter = advanced civilizations

Nobody knows for sure what this dark matter is made of. Perhaps, this dark matter (85% of all matter embedded in galaxies and clusters of galaxies) is the nonbiological portion of the intelligence of ancient advanced civilizations. A huge computronium based on cold computational technology. We are not able to see these civilizations directly because they don't interact in the electromagnetic spectrum. Being cold computers they don't emit radiation or perhaps for reasons beyond our current comprehension they are not made of regular baryonic matter but a more efficient computational form of matter. However, we clearly appreciated its gravitational effects.

3) The computational challenge they are solving

Since 1998 several experimental results indicate that a 'mysterious' force is acting in the universe. Dark energy is an unidentified agent that exerts a kind of antigravity force on the whole universe and its accelerating its expansion.

Perhaps this 'mysterious' force is nothing more that the result of advance engineering at a cosmic level by the 'dark matter' intelligences. It may be that the major problem of this community of advance beings was to avoid a 'big crunch' of the universe. They may have engineering a solution that we perceive like the dark energy. Now remember that the value of this dark energy (cosmological constant) is fine tune. It seems to have a value that not only accelerates the expansion of the universe but also benefits the formation of massive elliptical or spiral galaxies (98% of the current galaxies). Also, the value seems to be fine tune to favor a healthy rate of large start formation insuring the existence of the heavy elements that constitute our planet, brains, intelligence and technology. Also massive black holes at the center of galaxies seem to be inactive (perhaps more computational power!).

4) Falsifying the hypothesis

Using Kurzweil's law of accelerating returns I propose that the first intelligent civilizations capable of engineering at cosmic level appeared in the universe about 4 to 6 billion years after the big bang. Therefore if we check the first few years of the universe we shouldn't detect the consequences of the dark energy. At that time only gravity has to be the main force at a cosmic level, the amount of big galaxies is not as large as today and perhaps the rate of start formation is smaller, black holes at the center of galaxies are more active, etc. We should have the experimental means to find out these facts pretty soon (James Webb Space Telescope, etc). After 6 billion years we should notice that the influence of dark energy starts. The first superintelligent civilizations turn on the 'dark energy' switch to ensure the generation of additional intelligence and their survival as well. In a few hundred years perhaps, our machine legacy will joint them to contribute to this cosmic goal. Perhaps a study of the large scale configuration of dark matter at 6 billions years after the big bang and comparison with the current one may offer more insight.

I think Kurzweil should partner with some professional open minded cosmologists and summit a paper to one of the leading cosmology journals making some testable predictions based on these or similar ideas.

If intelligence is such a powerful force at a cosmic level a universe that contains extremely advanced intelligence has to be different of one that does not. This is clearly a falsifiable scientific hypothesis.

Bague2064


References:

- The Universe's Invisible Hand at:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colI D=1&articleID=1356B82B-E7F2-99DF-30CA562C33C4F03C

- Report of the Dark Energy Task Force at:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609591

Re: It Takes a Giant Cosmos to Create Life and Mind
posted on 03/20/2007 11:42 PM by RicWoz

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

First off the possible connection between dark matter and the intelligent cosmos is a really fascinating idea I've seen no where else. Well done.

Secondly reading this post, as well as Ray's introduction to the book I am reminded of the visionary architect Paolo Soleri and his philosophy. I wonder if anyone else here is familiar with him.

He coined the term "arcology" back in the 1970s to describe his idea of architecture + ecology. He saw the need for architeture to evolve to more complex, dense and integrated structures. The implications were both that these were better ecologically for the earth and obvious precursors to future extraterrestrial constructions.

He has been building his vision in the desert of Arizona for 20 years, Arcosanti. It's a fun place to visit.

His thinking about all this led him (in a way that makes sense if you read his writing) to state his philosophy in a book called: "The Bridge Between Matter and Spirit is Matter Becoming Spirit." This book was written in 1973 and may not be in print any longer.

It's interesting that his ideas so closely follow those now being advanced by hard scientists. He also wrote a book called "The Omega Seed: An Eschatological Hypothesis" that was more detailed and extended and included the ideas of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Anyway, I remember these books and probably have them in storage somewhere and am now interested in rereading them.

Re: It Takes a Giant Cosmos to Create Life and Mind
posted on 12/14/2007 8:29 AM by mirrorman

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

very funny - i just had the same idea a minute before i read this post.

being a nomad its much fun to think about such topics :) - but we shouldnt forget that we are just nomads - the chances that a hypothesis of such a large scale has anything to do with reality are close to 0.

Re: It Takes a Giant Cosmos to Create Life and Mind
posted on 12/14/2007 10:49 AM by PredictionBoy

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

exactly - plus, this is a tiny cosmos, not "giant".

so theoretically, we shouldnt be here.

Re: It Takes a Giant Cosmos to Create Life and Mind
posted on 12/14/2007 11:10 AM by mirrorman

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

i'm not here are you?

Re: It Takes a Giant Cosmos to Create Life and Mind
posted on 12/14/2007 11:13 AM by PredictionBoy

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

there are cosmoses out there that make ours look like a peanut, compared to the earth, seriously.

our universe is just barely large enuff to give birth to one set of "smelly centipedes", as eldras puts it - us.

just barely big enuff to give birth to one set of semi-intelligenct primates.

the other, older cosmii have beings that dwarf any concept of infinite sai ever discussed here.

Fermi's Paradox
posted on 12/14/2007 11:28 AM by Redakteur

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

our universe is just barely large enuff to give birth to one set of "smelly centipedes", as eldras puts it - us.


Dear PredictionBoy,

Excuse me, but I thought that, on this forum, it was practically taken for granted that the first intelligent life-form to evolve on a planet ALWAYS* immediately exterminates the other local contenders for that position.

And as for the putative non-existence of other intelligent life-forms in our observable universe - I'd attribute that merely to our poor powers of observation

Regards,
Redakteur


*Does the use of upper-case letters here to emphasize single words and phrases award me "points" according to Baez's crackpot index? I'd use boldface or italics if I knew how.

Re: Fermi's Paradox
posted on 12/14/2007 11:30 AM by PredictionBoy

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

good point, i hadnt thought of that - yes, we have already extinguished all other intelligent lifeforms in this entire, but quite small anyway, universe.

but in the bigger cosmii, much greater beings can prevail.

Re: It Takes a Giant Cosmos to Create Life and Mind
posted on 04/14/2010 1:58 AM by silentrage

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

I think the idea is freakin interesting as hell but I don't think this will lead anywhere, at least not at present.

If dark energy was switched on it should have been noticed. If there was a change in the rate of cosmological expansion from 0 to a finite speed at some time in the past, you would notice a "spike" in starlight redshift frequency in some areas of the universe, right?

I guess you could argue that ETI's technology was advanced enough for them to hide any signs of their messing with the entire universe, but then the discussion becomes rhetorical, they could in theory do anything they wanted, including planting this idea in our heads that they're made of dark energy and then never leave any clues just to mess with us.

I am really eager to find out what all that dark energy is though, I don't get how some people can not care about the fact that 80% of the fucking universe is unknown.

Re: It Takes a Giant Cosmos to Create Life and Mind
posted on 04/14/2007 1:16 AM by Gatekeeper

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

We have always been taught that when looking up at the night sky
we are looking at the past.
Why can't we be also looking at the future.
We seem to be so full of ourselvrs we think only in the present
and the past why can't we be, let's say in the middle, some stars no longer exist, and we are just now seeing their light while they are long gone. if true why can't some of the light be from stars that are intact and well ahead of us, could we not also be looking at the future?

Re: It Takes a Giant Cosmos to Create Life and Mind
posted on 05/04/2009 5:19 PM by vukster

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Interesting idea, but how could we see light which did not occur yet?

However what if it could be possible that dark matter and dark energy are actually stars in the future and therefore not yet visible to us. Maybe the whole universe is much older then we can estimate based on current calculations which are limited by our own perceptions.

Mayb
posted on 12/15/2007 1:19 AM by czarstar

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

If there are higher intellegence beings living on our world at this time I would call on them to step forward and make themselves known.

I wouldn't be scaried of them.

k

Re: Mayb
posted on 12/15/2007 1:20 AM by PredictionBoy

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

it is not you that must be frightened by that prospect.

Re: Mayb
posted on 05/28/2008 9:57 PM by someday69

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

Yea if they were higher intelegence,,,then they darn sure would stay hidden...
We are a vicious sort....not to be trusted.
They just might like to live here..the south of france,,,Rio,,,montivideo,,,just to name a few....Sail away.....

Re: It Takes a Giant Cosmos to Create Life and Mind
posted on 10/16/2008 10:55 AM by Nonconform

[Top]
[Mind·X]
[Reply to this post]

This theory of life being planted here on Earth does not do anything to answer the questions of life Origin. Why? It is a short cut by trying to explain that Origin on Earth. And does not do anything to explain Life origin period.
Question - what is the Origin of those creates.
Another layer of creatures created them and they created us?
Do you get my point. This theory only shifts the questions if life Origin from Earth to some over place in Universe.