Jacek,
I read a few of your viXra papers to get a handle on your spacetime deformation evolution concept; it's an interesting concept. I also fail to see a logical reason to distinguish between apacetime and the "matter" embedded in it. To me it would seem all one continuous entity.
It"s interesting that you start with a primordial spacetime which somehow gets perturbed and this perturbation creates density modulations in this spacetime "stuff." I'm curious as to your prime mover; what started it all?
You know, your concept fits to my own to a high degree. I start with the assumption that Aristotle's potentia, Plato's Unmoved Mover, and the Great Unborn Expanse of the Buddhist philosophers are all equivalent and that they all describe the most abstract mind. This mind has volitional capabilities and this is the prime mover. It deploys an ancestral thought which manifests as conscious intent eventually evolving to sentience - existence in perception.
So let's talk about survival of the stable. I think you would find the work of mathematician and AI researcher Ben Goertzel, whom I reference in my essay interesting. In his book The Evolving Mind [BG] Mr. Goertzel examines evolution from the perspective of the human immune system. Not only does this put evolution on a whole different time scale but it demonstrates the prevalence of feminine fitness. Darwin put sole emphasis on masculine fitness - competition - where the dominant entities survive. Mr. Goertzel points out that in many situations fitness is best understood from the feminine perspective, as in this coat fits well. Feminine fitness better captures the idea of symbiosis, both parasitic and mutually beneficial.
You find feminine fitness at play wherever you find complex systems which have evolved to fit an environmental niche. An example of parasitic symbiosis would be mange mites on dogs or certain fungi on saltwater fish. (Interestingly enough, these fungi can be eliminated by feeding the fish garlic; I've often wondered who it was who discovered this and what made them think to try it!) In both cases the parasites have evolved to fit their host but they provide no benefit to that host. An excellent example of mutually beneficial symbiosis is the relationship between zooxanthellae algae and their host coral. That relationship is not thoroughly understood but it's known that the zooxanthellae capture carbon dioxide from the coral and converts sunlight into energy in turn releasing oxygen and carbon based sugars which the coral utilizes. It's also known that zooxanthellae somehow assist the coral in secreting calcium bicarbonate from the water but the process is not well understood. These are excellent examples of feminine fitness.
And you see interplay between masculine fitness and feminine fitness in all types of environments. I've been diving since 1991 and maintaining reef aquariums since 1997 so I tend to use examples from the reef. One of the best is the relationship which has evolved between giant carpet anemone and their resident clown fish or colony. The clown fish doesn't really exhibit a great deal of masculine fitness; they're a prey fish towards the low end of the spectrum. Likewise, carpet anemones also lack masculine fitness in that they're a predator which can't move very fast! But when put together what you find is emergent behavior which displays a great deal of both feminine fitness, the carpet anemone protects the clown fish while the clown fish acts as bait attracting the anemone's lunch, and masculine fitness, the survivability of both complex systems is greatly enhanced.
Humans, of course, are the ultimate in parasitic symbiosis. A recently re-elected Texas congressman told the local newspaper that his goal this term was to gut the Endangered Species Act. He said it was time emphasis was placed on the human species for a change. He obviously doesn't understand complexity science; it's well known that selfish parasitic behavior can sometimes overwhelm the host leading to system failure on a global scale. I agree with Murray Gell-Mann, it's absolutely foolish to have such callous disregard for what has taken evolution billions of years to produce. But I diverge . . .
I'm waiting to rate essays until just before the submission deadline. I have determined a couple of benchmark essays but I would hate to give those a 10 rating and then have some essay appear that redefined the benchmark; it would be impossible to properly reward the essayist for their extraordinary effort. So, give me a few weeks and I'll return to rate your essay.
Reference
[BG] Goertzel, B., The Evolving Mind, Gordan and Breach Science Publ., New York, NY, 1993.
With regards,
Wes Hansen