Alternative Models of Reality

Hi Steven, you wrote "Darwinian systems tend to be progressive in this way, driving towards ever increasing levels of articulated complexity." But importantly they don't have to be if there is no need or if conditions are not conducive. Think about the crocodiles doing very well, coelacanths and many simple life forms that remain simple. And with environmental conditions, such as massive global warming or ice age the progress of adaptation will stop, as conditions are beyond adaption for most and worst case only simple forms may remain viable.

"no need" isn't really clear enough. I should have said without the necessary selection pressure. As Darwinian evolution involves culling of the maladapted or less well adapted from the reproductive gene pool, either through death or competition.

Hi Georgina. When I referred to "Darwinian system" I was generalizing the entirety of branching life forms on Earth. I spoke in terms of "tendency" for the very reason you have mentioned. Because not all life forms on Earth are undergoing rapid evolutionary change, all of the time. You mentioned the crocodile comfortable and relatively unchanging in its niche, which is true. However the crocodile underwent extraordinary levels of progressionary advancement to achieve its current form, and so it wasnt always that complacent. It was a worm, then a fish, then a reptile, and in its current form, is a highly evolved, "complex" organism.

You say "such as massive global warming or ice age the progress of adaptation will stop". I respectfully suggest this is far from the case. It is times of changing environment which places the greatest demands on animal survival, and forces rapid evolutionary change and adaptation. Animals not suited to heat, might find themselves in an uncomfortably hot environment, and provided they can first survive, then their descendants are likely to begin process of adaptions. Further more, if a more dominant species dies out due to changing environment, then there are often species in the waiting, ready to advance their stature within the ecosystem, as these niches become available. Environmental change can be a trigger to wide reaching evolutionary progression. Such is the case when dinosaurs took their final bow, and allowed mammals to take the stage. The advancement of mammals on the Earths stage, represents an example of Darwinian systems tending towards ever higher states of complexity.

Steven,

I am also an outsider. That is why asked about you. Regarding what you have stated, an observation is an observation, the inference you arrive at is an assumption to suit the observation. It is arbitrary from which you start explaining. Non-expanding space, expanding space, space-time, curved space-time, multidimensional space, etc are options to start with. I assume a non-expanding space (it is the galaxy-clusters that move out causing expansion of the system, and not the space).

Since you promote a new idea, you will have to explain 'everything' based on observations only. So it will be better to start from Newtonian model or Relativity model or Quantum mechanical model, so that you need not explain many fundamentals. Wherever you differ, you can state that.

Regarding biological evolution, the evolution from simple to complex is the observed fact, but it is not a rule. Even now, why such an evolution happens in the case of life is not fully explained. Comparing two acts is just to make the reader understand what you say. Similarity does not say that if one is correct, the other is correct.

Jose P Koshy

Hi Steven, I was thinking of more extreme selection pressure, the mass extinction kind. I have quite recently seen a program about the brain power of crows which is comparable to apes in tool use and problem solving. Thought to be due to more efficient brain structure allowing it unexpected high functioning of such a small brain. This article gives the idea. Despite their small brains, ravens and crows may be just as clever as chimps, research suggests Maybe the dinosaurs are underestimated. I can't remember where I saw it but I read about researchers thinking of using the birds brain structure as a model for artificial intelligence rather than the mammalian brain because of its efficiency,

Jose

Yes, I appreciate what you are saying and agree. Theory is always inference, and a theorist infers at his/her own risk. I would make a distinction however, that there is such a thing as direct inference, that isn't removed by several degrees of extrapolated inferences. I think this reduces the level of arbitrary. I put a great deal of esteem, in what I refer to as the correlations of nature. Gravity and mass share correlation. Expansion rate of space (redshift) and mass share correlation. Time and motion share correlation. I believe the correlations are the best clues as to what nature is really doing. I believe my theory is grounded on multiple correlations of nature, for which it benefits direct inferences.

Big Bang cosmology measures the redshift that occurs to photons transiting space. It's first inference is that the fabric of space itself is stretching at every point. Then the second inference, this is forcing galaxies away from each other, therefore corresponds to a galaxy recessional velocity and distance. But lets back that up a couple of inferences. A photon traversing deep space billions of miles away from any galaxies is being lengthened by a property of space = galaxies flying apart? That should raise an eyebrow.

Furthermore, Big Bang cosmology pays no attention to a glaring correlation between universal redshift values Auv, and universal atomic forces Tuv. That's selective reasoning. Ignore equalities like this at peril of missing something important. In any case, I feel that my hypothesis honours the direct inferences only, regenerative field of space stretching, lengthening photons (redshift), and this field is then interacting with matter is such a way, that the fields energy potential is being transformed into "work", that is mass. This is the reason for equality Auv = Tuv. This is why gravity shares equality with mass. Atomic actions are not fundamental in nature, cause without prior cause. The universe leverages its full and considerable volume, to the continual regeneration of force. This energy flows through and animates the material universe, and is not conserved in the process of doing so. It is extinguished in the act of driving Gauge Boson work actions.

Yes, I know it must sound strange to hear somebody claim, the same principles that drive complexity in biology, also drive complexity in physics and cosmology. However I think people will be surprise at the case I can build.

Steve

Thank you for the article Georgina. Brainiac poultry, very interesting. If they had hands, theyd take over the world.

I need attempt to bring people along with me, in an abstract line of reasoning which explains universal complexities, as well as a great many other things. It needs to be reasonable and rational, and also fit with an extraordinary number of observations we have made of this world. For which a mere resemblance would not suffice, as only a beautiful, natural and complete fit for these observations will do. I know what I attempt to tell you right now fits this criteria, however its primary persuasion is a matter of its holistic overview. However the explanation I am forced to give, is made up of the many sub considerations, which come to build and corroborate the overview. My description needs to portray ten meanings simultaneously, such is my challenge.

The broad sweeping holistic overview.

Space vacuum itself always having existed, however once having had nothing of physicality within. Into this nothingness emerges a self-replicating elemental field quanta, which it must be exploits a natural energy potential of space. As a convenient place holder, for now we assume vacuum potential. The field quanta being replicatable, it is automatically Darwinian in nature, and as it perpetuates its colonization of the extraordinary potential of space, consecutive generations are refining their ability to metabolize this natural energy potential that is vacuum. So right from the onset, the evolving field begins to progressively build its energy density.

Ok, so that's a nice story, but far from a given. However what I am going to do, is lead you on a journey that continually asks, "if this was to be the case, then how might the process have continued to unfold, and would it have come to resemble something of the universe as we observe?". And this will be the interpretation to withstand judgement.

The best way to lead you into these considerations, is to first reference an example of evolution we are all familiar with, Biology. For this purpose, I have an analogy referring to a microbial in an agar dish, which trains our minds to considerations of Darwinian principles. I will identify a couple of primary Darwinian principles, and make the argument they are likely themes within all cases of Darwinian emergence, not because they are fundamental, but because they are imperatively useful.

Without further a due..

Envision an agar nutrient dish that stretches off in all directions to infinity, and the nutrient inexhaustible. Into the dish habitat, place a single microbe. This scenario serves functionally analogous to the entire habitat and ecosystem of Earth, but also to my hypothetical scenario of elemental field quanta embedded in vacuum potential.

Metabolism

The microbe might start out less than ideally suited to the agar specifications, PH and the like, but nature of a Darwinian entity would be to adapt its metabolism to suit. And so too, the elemental field evolves its proficiency's.

Divergence of species

The microbe population would eventually be large, extreme points effectively isolated by the distance. Species on Earth which come to be geographically isolated on islands, or continents, inevitably leads to divergence of species, as generationally compounded changes accumulate. So too would my hypothetical elemental field quanta's.

Mortality

Before long, the microbial population has grown to such an extent, the largest sum of microbes exist within the crowded population body. This effectively excludes them from the infinite potential habitat of the nutrient dish. The microbes experience is then of a finite habitat and resource, which equates to the same circumstance of finite habitat and resource organisms experience on Earth. The problem being, if there is no room to perpetuate population growth, stalled generational exchange stalls evolutionary progression. Assuming a competitive, evolutionary progressive environment, it is the organism which maintains a health state of inter-generational exchange, which advances its adaptations and survival responses. In a circumstance of finite habitat and resource, like the Earth, it is the mortality system that becomes a near imperative evolutionary adaptation. And as I have pointed out, even a microbe living on an infinite expanse of nutrient dish, is not exempt from this consideration. And therefore neither is a hypothetical elemental field existing within the confines of its own population body. Darwinian systems require a mortality mechanism.

Microbes and further advanced life forms on Earth, are made up of elaborate series of molecules, which are in turn comprised of billions upon billions of elemental atoms. And Atoms themselves possess quite a number of intricate properties and complexities. Mass, chemical bond potentials, heat properties and photonic interactions. And the study of QM hints at a wonderfully intricate and articulated physicality of matter. So when early life initiates first use of a mortality system, then continues to advance its physical complexity through eons of evolutionary progression, integrating the function of mortality into every aspect of its being all the while. You result with something like what we observe of advanced life on Earth. Biological systems employing elaborate body clocks, that not only regulates a final act of mortality at the end of an organisms life, but billions of cellular deaths and renewals throughout the life cycle of a creature. But here is my point. Life employs many mechanisms and moving parts to govern mortality, but a prospective elemental field quanta might be presumed of ultimately simple nature. How does it solve for the mortality problem, when it doesn't have the capacity to build anything resembling a machine within individual units?

A Darwinian system which does not have capacity to build a mortality mechanism within individual units, might evolve another way to govern its mortality life cycle. I propose that in the case of my hypothetical elemental field, it might have adapted the predecessor of the Gauge Boson. Upon its original inception, Bosons might have achieved nothing more than simply reactioning and extinguish field quanta, enabling field generational exchange and renewal. However, now we have two universal elements to consider, within a symbiotic evolutionary progression. This hypothetical inter-relationship between space and matter, has efficiency considerations regarding its future evolutionary advancements. The Boson is metabolizing the field energy potential after all, so it is only natural to presume it might evolve capacity to direct that energy potential towards useful acts of work.

And this is where the prospects for this hypothesis explodes into a thousand implications, that correspond to what the universe around us, is observed to be doing. The properties of Gluons and EM building atomic structure, and the atomic property of heat. The property of mass bringing cosmological structures together. Nuclear fusion rates seemingly perfectly calibrated so as to provide enough heat, to provide stellar buoyancy against gravitational collapse. These are acts of elemental field enabled Gauge Bosons, to perform purposeful evolved work functions, promoting efficiency's of interaction between space and matter. It is through further consideration of this hypothesis that seemingly every universal act can be prescribed a cause and purpose. And through this process, we can deduce that there is a universal elemental field underlying and enabling the physical reality we experience.

Something wonderful happens, when this interpretation is viewed in comparative of the conventional view. I would very much enjoy to share.

Steven,

You say that photon is stretched and so space expands; logical, I agree. But there is another possibility that I suggest: Red-shift is not due to stretching of photon; it is quantum disintegration, a high energy quantum disintegrating gradually by splitting into two equal halves again and again at a certain rate. Both-ways, what we observe will be the same. There are still other explanations for red-shift.

Out of all possible explanations for red-shift, which is the correct one? That can be decided only when everything is explained. Till that time the selection is arbitrary.

We can say that the view accepted at present, photon stretching, is correct. Then you have to say metric expansion of General Relativity is correct. So the need for a new model is not justified. As long as we say that a new model is required, we can question the validity of all inferences.

That does not mean that your inference is wrong; only that it is not the only direct inference.

Jose P Koshy

Steven,

Let me continue. The overall view as it appears to me from what you have written is: Space is three-dimensional (is it not?), is expanding and have potential. Field arises from the potential, and gradually all structures are formed from the field, more or less in a predetermined manner, as if the space has some purpose.

Indeed, the model agrees with the overall observation. The present accepted version of the Bigbang model based on General relativity also tells something similar, however attaches no purpose. It is in the details, especially at the particle level that present model fails. If you can show that your model does not fail in the details, it would be wonderful.

I myself being a proponent of alternate model, I am interested in other such models. One last question: have you visualized the future of the universe in your model?

Jose P Koshy

Jose

You are making a lot of great points. It is clear you are practiced in the art of rationalizing things for yourself, as opposed to acceptance of other people's points of view unquestioned. The latter approach to building a world view, is comparable to a cultural learning. And a cultural learning cares nothing for rationalizing things anew. Cultural indoctrination comes very naturally to humans. People don't like to hear this, but it shouldn't be so confronting. It makes perfect sense of the circumstances of our evolutionary emergence, our historical lack of scientific awareness and our tendency toward superstition to fill voids of knowledge. Throughout our historical past, we only needed adopt our community's incomplete awareness of the world, because regardless its inaccuracies, it passed on tested methods for survival. And so cultural learning served us well. We humans are doing a pretty good job of unravelling the mysteries of the world, however it helps us to be aware of our impediments. In any case, you have honed an effective method of questioning and rationalizing things for yourself. I agree with you on every point you make, and I think it is the basis of what will become a functional discussion. Pleasure talking to you Jose.

I felt compelled to say that, because I don't come across this approach to rationalizing the puzzles of physics and cosmology often enough. I have only now discovered this community, but I am thoroughly impressed with many of the views people share here. I hope I come to fit in, because I like this place. You only learn this approach having made a genuine effort having puzzled the puzzles. It should be taught in our schools.

Yes, you are entirely right. We are measuring redshift and inferring its cause. I am aware of tired light theory, and also the discreet quantisation's observed of quasar redshift. I like to think I'm flexible enough of mind to reconsider all my assumptions, however I believe I have multiple justifications backing my inference, emergent space stretching photons interpretation. In simple terms, I believe I have a firm footed QM model, that relays on matters continual metabolism of an energy potential. If an elemental field of space provides this potential, then a finite universal field would eventually be depleted. But it just so happens, the current interpretation for redshift provides a tantalizing prospect, provided emergent dark energy observations correspond to a regenerative field. And regardless I like this interpretation because it happens to fit my hypothesis, there is an extraordinary correlation equality observed between the values of Auv, and Tuv. Dirac's large numbers hypothesis.

So that's just a very loose justification for my redshift inferences, which I will follow up with a far more thorough account. I believe I can do a great job of shoring up my list of inferences, with near direct alignment with many known correlations of nature.

Jose

You say "The overall view as it appears to me from what you have written is: Space is three-dimensional (is it not?), is expanding and have potential. Field arises from the potential, and gradually all structures are formed from the field, more or less in a predetermined manner, as if the space has some purpose."

Yes, space is three dimensions only. Time is a function internal of matter associated with Gauge Boson velocity C, and therefore time is not a property or function of space. Any properties of space that interact with our material universe, are associated with a physical field that exists in space, but is not space itself. Because space is nothingness, and nothingness has no interactive capacity. I know that contradicts by assumption of a vacuum energy potential of space, which the elemental field exploits. However I stated earlier that the concept of "vacuum energy" is a place holder for something I can not yet define.

You said "I myself being a proponent of alternate model, I am interested in other such models. One last question: have you visualized the future of the universe in your model?"

Yes I appreciate thoughtful alternative models, and I like components of yours. Great question by the way. I suspect I could write a book on that one question, but I'm only going to touch on the subject while my theory remains only partly defined here. My effort is needed to explain my physics. But yes, if physics is Darwinian of nature, then the properties and characteristics of the elemental field and of matter, are not fundamental in any respect, but entirely inherited from predecessors. So these characteristics must be encoded in someway equivalent to DNA. This has far reaching implications for the far flung future of the universe, as nearly every consideration of Darwinian biology, has implication within physics. And that is a wide and fascinating scope. Like for example, left to natural devises, physics will continue to evolve and change. Or, the dramatic possibility that physical reality could be manipulated by intelligent beings, in much the same way we modify genetics of our crops, or ourselves. This leads to wondrous contemplation's, as well as to some very scary ones. Defiantly an untapped resource for sci-fi writers

Jose

you say "more or less in a predetermined manner, as if the space has some purpose"

I dont view Darwinian process as unfolding in a predetermined manor. In a sense, the outcome of all interactions can be viewed as having a determinable outcome. But the direction evolution ultimately takes is entwined in so many minor happenstances and chance occurrences, it is inherently unpredictable. Much like the weather.

Within a weather system, you could predict the result of two molecules interacting and glancing off one another, if you had perfect information about their physical and motion state. But its a very different prospect predicting the exact outcome of the follow up interactions, the molecules will have with other molecules within the weather system. I dont think that the concepts of predeterminism, nor randomness fully captures the essence of this circumstance. A different definition is required, that marries something of both concepts together. Or perhaps it is the concept of "complexity" which suffices our needs.

Zeeya Merali,

I think you are still watching this thread started by you. Or have you left it to evolve by itself.

My previous post regarding a theory of Everything was posted a few days before. But I have a new finding related to that, but it has an independent standing, and so I add it as a new post.

The mystery of Fine Structure Constant which was introduced in 1916 stands unresolved till this day. I claim that I have discovered it. It is a constant related to spherical-packing. Particles integrate in such a way that the structure formed has the least number of entities required to form a spherical structure having least imperfection and perfect symmetry. The paper describing the finding is attached as a PDF file.

Jose P KoshyAttachment #1: vixra_17_FSC.pdf

Steven,

You mentioned about a purpose. That is why I regarded it as predetermined. Mathematics decides whether the result is deterministic or random. With very few variables, the result will be tend to be deterministic. As the number of variables increases, the result will tend to be random, because there will be more options allowed. Freewill allows a purposeful choice to attain a predetermined end result from among the options allowed.

The FQXI essay subject for this year is "Wandering towards a Goal", implying that there may be a purpose. I have submitted my paper, arguing that the Cosmos strives to attain self-realization through intelligent beings.

We also belong to the physical reality. So we cannot manipulate the physical reality; we can manipulate physical structures, and that we have been doing since the humans started using tools, and now we have turned to physical structures of DNA.

Jose P Koshy

Jose

Yes nicely said. The whole debate on free will isnt that confusing when you realize the circumstance as you have. Determinism doesnt limit the future to one possible outcome. And randomness isnt really real, because the past is only ever a sequence of mathematically conformal causes and effects. Complexity is more of a truthful notion, than is the notions of determinism and or randomness.

Is'nt that just the strangest thing, that randomness emerges from entirely deterministic underlying interactions. It appears a contradiction. And to obscure the nature of determinism even further, biological brains have evolved in this universe, who's causal experiences are stored as memories, which an organism has the potential to act on later throughout life. It is still a case of being cause and effect, but effect being stored as a potential within thought processes, and potentially expressed at a much later date, depending on interaction with other thought potentials. With the creation of minds, the universe has invented delayed potential effects, which take on the appearance of purposefulness.

Yes, interesting essay subject. I'll be interested to read your submission.

You say "We also belong to the physical reality. So we cannot manipulate the physical reality" This is not evidently so. If our reality is only made up of physical structures, then manipulation of those physical structures is manipulating our reality. That sounds trivial if I was only talking about moving rocks around to assemble a house. However, if Bosons internal of matter could be manipulated to structure different styles of elements and molecules, or programmed to respond differently to gravitational potentials, then not so trivial.

Well...it seems like Steven and Jose are very much one and the same...funny how that works.

What about quantum phase coherence and entanglement? You speak about probabilities but never mention the uncertainty principle. Ergo, you have a classical deterministic view of the universe. How does your model handle quantum interference?

I would like to have refined the following content somewhat, but I have a visitor arriving for stay. So this will have to do.

Yes, great subject for an essay, "Wondering towards a Goal". I will be interested to read your essay. I have wondered along the lines of your essay, cosmos striving to attain self-realization. However a universe of Darwinian origins as I am contemplating at the moment, does prescribe an implication for this notion. Darwinian evolution cannot be said to be intellectually conspiring towards goals. It can only evolve and experimentally progress toward the capacity for intelligence, which then in turn, has the capacity to express goals and intent.

You will appreciate the challenge my hypothesis presents for me, as intelligence can only arise if life can arise. And life can only arise if very particular properties of matter happen to arise, like elements and chemistry and the bonds that form molecules, especially the role water molecules play. But if the universal complexity is of Darwinian origin, it cannot be said to have conspired these states of assembly. But equally, Darwinian process cannot be said to be whimsical or aimless in its undertakings, as evolved characteristics are based on very non trivial selection survival/perpetuation criteria. This means I have no wiggle room, and every aspect of physics and cosmology must be ascribed a purpose based on what it is observed to be actually doing, because what it is actually doing must be what it evolved to do within the Darwinian universal context. And it must be an explanation that makes a natural kind of sense, and not have a feel of being forced.

To this end, why would a Darwinian universe come to express such a pervasive theme for elemental and molecular bonds, and chemistry? And why a wet and or icy universe? Because the potential for life is entirely a subject of the pre-existing potentials, that are these bonds of matter.

Why chemistry, why bonds, why a wet universe?

If Auv = Tuv corresponds to a regenerative Darwinian elemental field of space, from which the bosonic universe emerged for evolutionary progressive reasons, for the purpose of clearing the field for continual renewal. And that the Bosonic universe evolved in a co-evolutionary relationship with the field, forever refining its ability to metabolize the fields energy potential, then direct capacity for work towards building useful structures, optimised for mutually beneficial interaction between space and matter. Then why chemistry, why bonds, why a wet universe?

Assume for a moment, that the macro structures we observe in the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, are optimised for this space and matter interaction. Then consider the role chemistry and bonds play within the context of building and maintaining these structures. Rocky planets for example, built of the precursor bodies of comets which are glued together with ice water molecular bonds, and asteroid glued elemental molecular bonds. If elements and molecules could not express bond potentials, then these small bodies would be solely reliant on weak gravitational bonding to maintain their structures. Solar systems are far to kinetically energetic to build such structures, so if these bodies couldn't be maintained, then planet formation could not be initiated.

Further more, so kinetically energetic is our universe, that even planetary bodies benefit from cohesion. Planets form molecularly bonded crusts, which are subjected to continual bombardment from meteorite impacts, and weather erosion. If the Earths geology is viewed from the presumption, that rocky planets are evolved systems optimised for Darwinian universal purpose, and that the universe has evolve techniques for best persisting these structures. Then the ways in which Earths geology continually rebuilds its crust, becomes very interesting. Continental subduction and obduction processes continual replacement of Earths crust. But by far the most interesting consideration, because of its possible relevance to the eventual emergence of life in the universe. The role that water plays in the chemical rebuilding of molecular bonds, that form sedimentary rocks, that repair continental crust.

Consider what water is, and what it is capable of doing within this context. It is a universal solvent which can impart the lightest of molecular bonds on various elements and minerals. Pick them up and carrying in suspension, then placing them where they might be useful in solidifying together rocky aggregates. Or even impart a more aggressive chemical process in the mediation of acidic and alkaline chemical processes, capable of dissolving minerals and transporting them to places of aggregate rock formation. The solvent interaction between water and minerals is so exquisite of nature, that over time it can completely restructure a weather eroded continental plate with sedimentary deposits, or entirely rebuild in a replacement process, bone into solid rock fossils. Or, mediate the extraordinary array of water enabled chemical bonding's and bond dismantling's, that enable the functions of life to occur. Life which provides the most telling example of the subtleties of the levels of complexity, of chemistry and process of molecular bond forming, enabled by this universal solvent that is water. The implication is, wet rocky planets like Earth are not contrived, nor purely happenstances of nature, but rather are a preferred universal state within a Darwinian context, that the universe has likely spent a great deal of time refining.

The universe progressed Gauge Boson chemical process, and bonding potentials to such high levels of advancement for reasons other than lifes emergence, but none the less it is what made life possible.

Steven,

I say again that we cannot manipulate physical reality, because anything we create (by manipulating) is part of physical reality. Freewill allows only selection from what is allowed by physical reality. Nature allows many things; out of that, things that are most viable evolve automatically. The less viable things sometimes occur naturally under rarely occurring conditions, our manipulations are rarely occurring natural things (it is a natural thing because the manipulation is allowed by nature).

Why does life exist; because atoms arranged in a certain way shows the property we call life. Atoms arranged in a more complex manner shows the property we call intelligence. Why computers? Again, atoms arranged in a certain way. These configurations are allowed by nature. So what we call manipulation is selecting something that is allowed by physical reality.

There are possibilities for emergence does not guarantee that life will emerge. Then, why life emerged? In my opinion, motion is a property of matter; matter always remains in motion, or the universe made up of matter remains evolving (I visualize a pulsating universe). The evolution of universe is a continuous (very small quantum jumps make it continuous) process. Any 'large quantum of events' in that continuity cannot be skipped. All 'large quantum of events' have to happen. The emergence of life is a 'quantum of events' in the continuous line of evolution of universe, and so in each expanding phase life has to emerge; life is not a chance coincidence.

Jose P Koshy