Jochen, By my account... well, maybe an account I usurped form Nick... which there is no reason you should particularly care about, all explanations are metaphors. I say that merely to note that my claim that you invoked a metaphor was not intended to make light of your claim in any way. I only meant to point out that the claim "the universe is evolving" must mean something like "the universe is like other things that I would characterize as 'evolving' ". Inquiry continuing from that point requires that we figure out how the claim "the universe is evolving" goes beyond the much less controversial claim "the universe is changing."
Nick, Damn, I was afraid I was screwing that up. The claim that the world is evolving still seems problematic though. Do I have it right if I merely say that evolution is about fitting into the world better than the world has been fit in the past? If so, then maybe my problem is that evolution requires two things (the thing doing the fitting and the thing fit into), and so "the universe is evolving" lacks an obvious counterpoint? It is something like the tiny awkwardness added to the organic evolution story if you take niche construction seriously, only much deeper. Eric On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 04:14 PM, Jochen Fromm <[email protected]> wrote: > >Hi Eric,> > >>It is not just a metaphor, the idea is that the universe is evolutionary at the deepest level, let us say the Planck scale. Space would replicate itself at each timestep, and time would be linked to the replication rate of the universe. Particles somehow emerge from spacetime in this replication process. I have not read the papers Marcus mentioned, maybe they contain some interesting hints. >> > >>Jochen > >Sent from Android > > > "ERIC P. CHARLES" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>Interesting ideas! I'm not sure what would have to be true for the >evolution metaphor to make sense, however. Certainly the world is changing, but >to say that particles are 'evolving' is a more narrow claim. As I understand >the metaphor, at least two things would have to be true that I know next to >nothing about (and would appreciate any insight the group could >provide): > >1) It would have to be the case that particles 'reproduce' >themselves in some sense, so that a 'lineage' of some sort could be >established. > >2) Some particles would have to 'fit' the world better than >others, by some externally verifiable criterion independent of their >reproductive success. > >Only then could we claim that the particles around >today fit today's world better than the particles of long ago would >have. > >Again, this seems plausible to me, but I am not aware of any >evidence. > >Eric > > > >On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 01:49 PM, "Jochen >Fromm" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I like the idea of "Quantum Evolution" >http://wiki.cas-group.net/index.php?title=Quantum_Evolution >Why has nobody tried to combine Darwin and Einstein? >I think this is a wonderful idea. If we treat particles - >esp. fermions - as an apdative unit, then a particle would >be a kind of evolutionary species, and a vertex becomes >a speciation event. Instead of a Feynman diagram we >would have a phylogenetic tree of particles. > >I am not sure how bosons (the force carriers responsible >for interaction) and fermions (the matter carriers which >obey the Pauli exclusion principle) fit into this picture, but >maybe a boson would roughly correspond to a stem cell, >because it is a basic unit of replication which replicates >itself while moving through space-time, and a whole >organism or species to fermions, which cover a certain niche >in the ecology of cosmic evolution (the real reason for the >Pauli exclusion principle?). > >If the universe is really evolutionary on the deepest >level, then there is an important lesson to learn from >the evolution of complex systems: the most abundant, >primitive and tiniest elements are often the oldest >and most fundamental ones. For example algae and bacteria >are countless, tiny and primitive, but they belong to >the most ancient life-forms on earth. Thus the smallest >particles, the insignificant neutrinos with their strange >inclination to oscillate, are perhaps more important than >we think, exactly because they interact only very weakly >with normal matter. > >Therefore I think if there is something revolutionary >to discover, it is more likely the Neutrino than the >Higgs particle which will make the really big headlines, >even if this experiment turns out to be false. > >-J. > > > > >============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > >Eric Charles > >Professional Student and >Assistant >Professor of Psychology >Penn State University >Altoona, PA >16601 > > > > ============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
