Essay Abstract

Despite being based on very simple principles, Darwin's theory of natural selection is immensely powerful and can explain how the wonderful diversity of complex life evolved. But is this theory fundamental, and if not, what are its fundamental roots? To answer these questions I first introduce a more general principle of evolution that itself encompasses Darwin's theory. I then examine which properties of our "fundamental" laws are responsible for enabling complex structures, such as life, to emerge in our universe. Along the way I discuss the arrow of time and the meaning of the term fundamental; and I explain how increasingly complex structures from atoms to giraffes can emerge from the quarks of the early universe.

Author Bio

Dr Paul Knott is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Nottingham. His current project aims to use artificial intelligence to design quantum physics experiments, in particular in quantum optics. His other research interests include quantum state engineering, quantum foundations, quantum Darwinism, and quantum information.

Download Essay PDF File

I like your essay very much. The only question I have, is why did you focus upon DARWINIAN evolution, instead of something like the nature of time?

I.e. do you view the concept of Darwinian evolution as more fundamental than the nature of time?

Thanks if you answer it.

Great essay. Not quibbling other than just wanting to get your thinking

Andy

    Dear Paul,

    A very interesting essay, which I read with pleasure.

    You write that:

    > Following the principle of generalised evolution we can now explain the existence of increasingly complex structures in the universe.

    I was wondering: the fact that generalised evolution can explain the existence of complex structure, as you have shown, don't imply that there's something simpler behind this increasing complexity that is even more fundamental?

    bests,

    Francesco D'Isa

      Hi Andy,

      Thanks for your comment. I focused on Darwinian evolution because, despite its simplicity, it has immense power in explaining how and why the incredible variety of complex life emerged. I would argue that it's one of the most important theories in science. So my motivation was to take this theory, and ask the question "how fundamental is it?".

      You're right that the direction my essay headed demonstrated a close connection between the nature of time and Darwinian evolution. An essay on the fundamental nature of time would be an equally interesting topic. In my opinion though, the nature of time is not more fundamental than Darwinian evolution. This is because the nature of time doesn't directly imply or lead to the concept of Darwinian evolution. In contrast, I would argue that the nature of laws of the universe that we call fundamental (general relativity, the standard model, quantum mechanics, et cetera) do imply and lead to the concept of Darwinian evolution. I.e. if you knew all the fundamental laws, and if you knew the state of the fundamental constituents (particles etc) in the universe, then you could in principle derive the fact that on a planet such as Earth, Darwinian evolution would take place. So in a sense I would say these are more fundamental.

      Cheers, Paul

      Dear Francesco,

      Thank you for your comment. I'm sorry but I don't fully understand your question - are you asking whether I think there is something simpler and even more fundamental than generalised evolution?

      I would say there are different answers to this question, depending on how you approach it. On the one hand, in the essay I argued that the principle of generalised evolution holds by definition, which means that there can't be anything simpler and more fundamental that leads to it. If something is correct by definition, then it doesn't need a deeper explanation.

      On the other hand, the purpose of the principle of generalised evolution is to explain why and how complexity emerges. In the essay I argue that we can explain this without even referring to generalised evolution. I would argue that the nature of laws and constituents of the universe that we normally call fundamental (the standard model, general relativity, etc) directly lead to the evolution of complex structures. I.e. if you knew all the fundamental laws, and if you knew the state of the fundamental constituents (particles etc) in the universe, then you could derive that complexity would emerge.

      I think this nicely highlights that there isn't always a single answer the question of what is fundamental, and we can take different viewpoints to find different fundamental explanations.

      Cheers, Paul

      Dr. Knott:

      Part of your suggestion is that life considerations can suggest fundamental principles. Just so. (see my essay).

      Another suggestion is that emergence (not reductionism) is fundamental. But you address only a small part of the emergence process see STOE emergence.

        Dear Paul,

        thank you for your answer, I'll try to be clearer, sorry. But your answer already helps me.

        > On the one hand, in the essay I argued that the principle of generalised evolution holds by definition, which means that there can't be anything simpler and more fundamental that leads to it. If something is correct by definition, then it doesn't need a deeper explanation.

        Do you mean this in a similar sense as "2+2=4", more as an axiom or like a self-evident empirical truth?

        > I would argue that the nature of laws and constituents of the universe that we normally call fundamental (the standard model, general relativity, etc) directly lead to the evolution of complex structures. I.e. if you knew all the fundamental laws, and if you knew the state of the fundamental constituents (particles etc) in the universe, then you could derive that complexity would emerge.

        In this sense evolution is a necessary consequence of more fundamental laws, like the one you quote above?

        > I think this nicely highlights that there isn't always a single answer the question of what is fundamental, and we can take different viewpoints to find different fundamental explanations.

        I agree, my text has similar consequences as well. Congrats for your essay!

        Francesco

        Dear DR Paul Knott,

        FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

        Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

        All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

        Only the truth can set you free.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

        Dear Paul Knott,

        You adopted the belief-based Big Bang theory as if Darwin's principle of evolution did also start from nothing. I already asked here in vain someone else why Max Born did reject ideas by Robertson which are now accepted. Maybe, you can answer this.

        Why didn't you deal with the actual and the expected evolution? In an earlier contest I wrote an essay "Towards more reasonable evolution", see [3].

        Eckard Blumschein

          Hello Paul,

          I support the direction of your conclusions. I hope you may be interested in further refinement of the naturally evolving and universally defined world complexity in my essay here, within a similar general framework (see also my web site).

            Dear Francesco,

            > Do you mean this in a similar sense as "2+2=4", more as an axiom or like a self-evident empirical truth?

            I wouldn't say it's an axiom, because in my understanding an axiom is something that is assumed to be true, rather than being proven to be true. But it might be like "2+2=4" in the following sense: if we ask how 4 is defined, then we could [/b define] 4 as being the number found by summing 2 and 2. If we define 4 in this way (and define +, =, 2, etc accordingly), then it is trivially true, by definition, that 2+2=4.

            > In this sense evolution is a necessary consequence of more fundamental laws, like the one you quote above?

            Yes, exactly!

            > I agree, my text has similar consequences as well.

            Ah okay, nice, I'll check out your essay then.

            Thanks for these questions!

            Paul

            Dear John,

            Thanks for your comments. I don't think I suggested that emergence is fundamental - in my understanding, emergence is, by definition, not fundamental. In what sense could one say that emergence is fundamental?

            Due to lack of space I didn't really address emergence. But I guess I would say that Darwinian evolution is an emergent theory, which can in principle be derived from more fundamental theories such as the standard model, combined with an understanding of the entities that inhabit our universe (particles, fields, etc).

            Thanks for pointing to your essay - I'll check it out.

            Paul

            Dear Eckard,

            Thanks for your comment. I'm afraid I don't understand your question though. What do you mean by actual and expected evolution? How do you suggest this would fit in with my essay?

            Thanks,

            Paul

            Hello Andrei,

            Thanks for your message and for pointing me to your essay - I'll read it with interest.

            Paul

            Dear Paul,

            well...I'm not convinced...

            While we can tell a rather consistent, well documented and reasonable story running from early antiquity to the standard model of elementary particles, the reverse story is not only littered with wonders (called emergence) compared to which the turning of water into wine appears like hobby sorcery, but also falls victim to the argument from ancestrality. That means, either you erase your brain before talking of the early universe (which you cannot) or say that the evolving universe is the belief of that early 21st species that can be traced back to early antiquity. What you certainly cannot do is positively describing (even in terms of principles) the universe as it REALLY was, became or is.

            Heinrich

              Dear Paul,

              The essay I referred to was http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2747 .

              You understand Darwinian evolution in an extended sense. When I wrote "towards a more reasonable evolution" I included the actual and future evolution of the world including nature and mankind.

              I hope you will agree on what I consider our common responsibility to limit population growth as to protect the basis of our life. I vote for an appropriate correction of ethics.

              Admittedly, my current essay http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3009 merely mentions this topic as an example for a semifundamental construct although it might be more important than all physics together.

              Eckard

              • [deleted]

              Paul,

              I was interested in your thesis as I derived 'quantum evolution' and learning (to give 'intent') in my essay last year. I enjoyed your original approach and forthright attempt to prove a rather slippery proposition, then also that it's fundamental. Not a bad job, nicely written and argued if not entirely convincing.

              I agree a lot, certainly; "removing the somewhat arbitrary divisions between the sciences we will see that a deeper level of explanation exists" as a wider truth, and that

              "general relativity and the standard model of particle physics - are likely to only be approximations of some deeper laws."

              Also with much about evolution, though the 'stability' concept is a little semantic & could be argued both ways, as mutation itself is instability! You also you make unsupported assumptions; A Big Bang (forgivable) but then; "if we randomly arrange the particles in the universe it is unlikely that something worthy of performing a "measurement" would exist". which you'd need to define 'measurement' to rely on. Does it requite the outcome information to be 'processed & analysed'!? What if 'measurement' was just interaction and momentum exchange, and maybe even the same mechanism which produces mutation!?

              Which brings me to mutation. By your own definition and argument is not the quantum scale process itself clearly more fundamental and universal than general or Darwinist evolution? Sure, we may not understand it yet, or maybe we do! What if an RNA reproduction 'switch' particle interacts on the 'equator' when the DNA must decide right or left polarity? Or inversely decide up/down spin precisely at a pole!? (My own essay does derive a shocking classical QM from that, which I hope you'll dare comment on!)

              So I'm unconvinced on fundamentality. Yet as I remind others 'agreement' isn't a scoring criteria so I have you down for a high score.

              An interesting proposal, very well written and argued.

              Best wishes in the contest

              Peter

                Dear Heinrich,

                Which particular part of my essay are you not convinced about? Is there a specific section or idea you disagree with?

                From my perspective you seem to be saying that any discussion about the early universe is misguided?

                Best,

                Paul

                Dear Peter,

                I certainly agree that 'agreement' isn't a scoring criteria. This contest is about discussion and debate, and for this reason I thank you for your interesting and insightful questions.

                > You also you make unsupported assumptions... "if we randomly arrange the particles in the universe it is unlikely that something worthy of performing a "measurement" would exist". which you'd need to define 'measurement' to rely on. Does it requite the outcome information to be 'processed & analysed'!? What if 'measurement' was just interaction and momentum exchange, and maybe even the same mechanism which produces mutation!?

                This point about "measurement" was specifically about quantum mechanics, and in particular whether quantum mechanics is time-symmetric or not. Note that all the other fundamental laws of physics are, at least to a first approximation, time-symmetric. But quantum mechanics is normally formulated using the following postulates: i) isolated systems evolve by Schrödinger equation; ii) when measured, a superposition state collapses and only one outcome of the experiment is observed. The Schrödinger equation is time-symmetric, but measurement is not because only one outcome of many possibilities is observed, and it is probabilistic which outcome this is.

                The measurement postulate (ii) has always been controversial and has raised many issues. Different theories give a different interpretation of what a "measuring device" is, including suggestions that a measuring device must be conscious, or macroscopic, or of a certain large mass, or just "classical". My favourite alternative is that postulate (i) can be derived from postulate (ii) (e.g. Everett interpretation combined with decoherence theory).

                Now, if we randomly arrange all the particles in the universe, the probability of forming something complex will be small. Furthermore, the probability of forming something complex yet stable, such as a molecule or a human or even a star, will be tiny. Therefore, quite soon after we randomly arranged the particles, the probability of anything conscious, or macroscopic, or massive, would be tiny. So even if you believe that quantum mechanics is not time symmetric due to postulate (ii), then the universe we would be left with would act as if the laws are time-symmetric. This would be true until something that can suitably be called a "measuring device" emerges.

                > is not the quantum scale process itself clearly more fundamental and universal than general or Darwinist evolution

                Yes that's true -- my argument is that if we know the fundamental laws and constituents of our universe, then we could in principle show that complex structures, all the way to complexly life, are likely to emerge (or at least there's a non-zero chance that they will). However, while this is in principle possible it would be intractably difficult in practice, and then the simple but powerful principles of universal/general/Darwinist evolution become extremely useful tools for explaining how complexity emerges.

                > Sure, we may not understand it yet, or maybe we do! What if an RNA reproduction 'switch' particle interacts on the 'equator' when the DNA must decide right or left polarity? Or inversely decide up/down spin precisely at a pole!?

                Can you clarify in what sense this is goes against my conclusions?

                I would like to read your essay, but your comment was anonymous. Can you send me a link or the title of your essay please?

                All the best,

                Paul