Hi Eric,
Sorry, I have seen your mail was not meant for the whole
list, but I think it is interesting for all others as well?
Yes, you are right, for evolution we need three things: reproduction,
inheritance and variation (in form of mutation or recombination).
The answer to your two points would be the following simple
assumptions:
1) Reproduction <=> Existence
- The universe replicates itself in each time step,
like a Cellular Automaton, which replicates itself
in the next time step
- Particles can propagate through space maximally
at this replication rate, similar to a cellular automata,
where nothing can propagate faster than the replication
rate.
- Particles are self-replicating entities that
reproduce themselves as stable patterns at a certain
location. A glider in the Game of Life for instance
produces a copy of itself at a slighty different
location.
2) Fitness <=> Persistence
- Particles which 'fit' to their environment are persistent
- Particles which do not 'fit' to their environment are
temporary and decay
- A persistent particle which is able to interact with
others has some kind of internal, composite structure
Is this enough for a natural selection of elementary
particles? I don't know, but it is an interesting topic.
Variations may depend on the exact recombination
form of space-time structures, which may result in a slight
different mass, spin or charge.
Jochen
----- Original Message -----
From: ERIC P. CHARLES
To: Jochen Fromm
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why Neutrinos are important
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
============================================================
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
