How fundamental is Darwinian evolution? by Paul Knott

Dear Paul,

thank you for your answers!

bests,

Francesco

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

I also enede with those qualitative questions why and how in my essay https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3093

I Think they are extremely important and neglected. They say in math formulations that 2+2= 3 or 5, and are maybe one important drive for why Changes are made.

I have studied the Maxwell Deamon and other questions to get an answer on natural selection, and I Think I can be secure saying Darwinism and natural selection are NOT fundamental drives.

Thanks for a nice story.

Ulla Mattfolk

Dear Paul,

As you rightly noticed, my doubt is of a more general nature. The trouble with evolution is that it is truly objective, i.e. occupies a vantage point that no subject can ever take. Now, science, if anything, seems to be a process of 'objectification' - so what's wrong here? Well, the 'objectivity' of, say, Newton's laws is entirely different from that of the theory of natural evolution. Newton's theory is inter-subjective in as much everyone equipped with a meter stick and a clock can try to falsify or simply use it, and all will come up with the same results. Further, Newton's theory is intuitive, i.e. we (all of us) a priori know that filling more powder into the cannon will make the cannon ball fly farther. And as also we all know doesn't Newton's apple fall in TIME, since there is no TIME to be found in the equations of motion. On the other hand, any theory of evolution is truly objective in as much it describes 'the world' from the object's point of view, which no subject ever can occupy for the reason that humans have no historical sense in addition to vision, hearing, etc. The object freed from inter-subjectivity is automatically an object in TIME, however; where else could it be moved to where we want to have it. This is what Hegel meant when he said that Spirit falls into TIME when he loses his concept. The concept is inter-subjective though, aka knowledge.

Ideas of evolution - in being truly objective - fail on inter-subjectivity, which is why there are as many theories of natural evolution as there are biologists, and as many stories of the Big Bang as there are cosmologists. Now, coming full circle, any theory of evolution is subjective (as the term is commonly used) by being truly objective, i.e. object-in-TIME centered, rather than inter-subjective. This is why I said that telling the story of the universe as it TRULY evolved, would require you to erase your brain first. Because, in order to OBJECTIVELY argue temporally forward from say tau=1e-6 sec after BB, rather than from one's armchair, one should through any knowledge beyond the standard model over board - and obviously get stuck. Since, however, scientists understanding the standard model while being ignorant of consciousness, biology, chemistry and solid state physics cannot possibly exist, ideas of evolution just reify the reversed history of scientific discoveries.

Sorry for so many words! If, instead of being mostly Darwinians, we were mostly Parmenideans, my reply simply would have been: time is an illusion.

Heinrich

Dear Paul,

- I assume that the universe, and all the objects in it, exist independent of subjective observers

* The ancient Greeks entertained a universe of crystalline spheres; Newton gave us gravitation, making crystalline spheres unnecessary; Einstein gave us distortion of space-time by mass doing away with action at a distance. Mr. Zweistein in 2055 will give us...doing away with space-time. So, at least by means of induction I have shown that an observer-independent universe is elusive.

The elegant and stringent answer is of course 'Kant', e.g. the a priori conditions of the possibility of experience (space, time and causation).

- I also assume that the universe existed in the past

* Isn't TIME the domain in which we lie? A good lie, then, is one that claims a past not contradicting the present. The number of good lies though is extremely high, particularly when there are no witnesses left...Another important requirement for a good lie is NO MIRACLES!

- I can then ask the question: what was the universe like in the past? Using our best current theories, our best guess is that 10e-6 sec after BB the universe was a sea of quarks...

* See above (Sincerely, I'm not here suggesting that you're lying in any amoral sense!) Tempus systems were added to archaic languages at about 1000-500 BC, but remained restricted to lyrics, epos and tale telling until historiography in the 18/19th century laid claim to scientific status. The idea that there is something like a universal history of mankind is a unique idea of European romanticism, which Darwin extended to nature in general. Lying in this 'scientific' sense about the past has become conventional, but remained dogmatic (other than Newton's laws!).

- I can then argue about how, eventually, these quarks came to form complex life (ie my essay)

* See above: too many miracles (emergences). Try to tell a friend what you did last week involving one two 'emergences' and see what happens.

Some of your comments particularly confuse me:

- [As we know] doesn't Newton's apple fall in TIME, since there is no TIME to be found in the equations of motion. HL

There is an equation of motion that governs how the apple moves in time?

* A falling apple can be observed for the reason that in the sentence: "The apple falls" nothing is moving. Likewise is the result of the equations of motion a trajectory or an orbit, a geometrical figure in general, which neither moves itself nor any of its parts.

- there are as many theories of natural evolution as there are biologists, and as many stories of the Big Bang as there are cosmologists. HL

In my understanding, in terms of the general details there is 1 commonly agreed upon theory of natural evolution, and 1 commonly agreed upon story of the Big Bang. Of course there is disagreement at the edges of the theories, but as with every theory it's likely that these will be ironed out with time.

* Try to tell your friend how you passed the exam with all the details missing...

- any theory of evolution is subjective (as the term is commonly used) by being truly objective, i.e. object-in-TIME centered, rather than inter-subjective [as e.g. Newton's laws]. This is why I said that telling the story of the universe as it TRULY evolved, would require you to erase your brain first. HL

I struggle to see how the former sentence implies the second?

* The point is indeed difficile. Let me try an analogy: Wouldn't it be a farce when the head of the university's mathematics department dresses up like a student, passes the exam summa cum laude+++ and then says: I knew it's absolutely straight forward and simple. The point is, the professor cannot recover the status of a student. They experience different mathematical 'worlds'. The universe at tau 1e-6 as it Really was, wasn't given to anyone - so back to top of post.

Have a nice weekend,

Heinrich

Dear Paul

You have selected a highly relevant subject for the contest, formed quality assessment and reasonings, and delivered a fair and reasonable final evaluation. I'm scoring you a 10.

You have clearly spend countless hours weighing up the arguments and trying to reconcile the mystery of, "how can atomic structure and function be the result of a process of generalized evolution?"

You deduce some basic prerequisites which are required for "generalized evolution" to have any chance of delivering an interesting product. By product I refer too, an interesting world.

1. New structures can form; and

2. Certain structures are stable

Your use of plurals is central to the challenge of this subject. And I know you will well appreciate to what I refer. If the entity created in the big bang had a wide scope of potentials for interaction and forming stable structures, it would make it easier to understand how meaningful structure might have eventuated. It could kind of experiment with lots of potential configurations, "structures which can form" and the ones which are "most stable" would eventually persist over those that are less stable. But, the laws we observe don't show any such wider scope or flexibility of interaction.

The problem is the universe having had one opportunity, created one type of material, and that material having the very very specific properties of interaction and stable structure building that result this amazing world we live in. No waste material laying about the place like unused lego blocks, or that last lump of duo that doesn't quite make a full cookie. And I'm not telling you this because I think you don't know it. But rather, I say this so you can judge that I know what you certainly do well know ? Infact I would judge that few know it better than you.

My essay is titled "Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". You will either love it or hate it. Either way I would be interested to learn your impression please? And I welcome your test of my reasonings.

Steven Andresen

Dear Paul

You have selected a highly relevant subject for the contest in my opinion, formed quality reasonings, and delivered a fair and reasonable final evaluation. It is a good method of enquiry to discern fundamental nature of the world, "how fundamental is Darwinian evolution?" I scored you a 10.

You have clearly spend countless hours weighing up the arguments and trying to reconcile the mystery of, "how can atomic structure and function be the result of a process of generalized evolution?"

You deduce some basic prerequisites which are required for "generalized evolution" to have any chance of delivering an interesting product. By product I refer too, an interesting world.

1. New structures can form; and

2. Certain structures are stable

I think you are entirely correct in this regard, but there are some pieces of the puzzle that require fitting before it is a wholly satisfactory explanation.

Your use of plurals is central to the challenge of this subject. And I know you will well appreciate to what I refer. If the entity created in the big bang had a wide variety of potentials for interaction and forming stable structures, it would make it easier to understand how meaningful structure might have eventuated from many possibilities of configuration. The universe could kind of experiment with lots of potential configurations, "structures which can form" and the ones which are "most stable" would eventually persist over those that are less stable. But, the laws we observe that govern physics process don't show wider scope for experimentation. They are specific laws that make a very specific world.

The problem is the universe having had one opportunity to get it right, created one type of material, and that material having the very very specific properties of interactions, and stable structure building that result this very particular amazing world we live in. No waste material laying about the place like unused lego blocks. And I'm guessing you are well considered in this regard ? Infact I would judge that few might know it better than you, because few that I know even confront this issue.

My essay is titled "Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It details a circumstance whereby Darwinian principles serve as the organisational principle, that delivers the complex system of physical matter. As you know, Darwinian evolution is a powerful process, and the only process we are aware of which can deliver highly articulated complex systems. You might assume a reasonable sounding theme could not be applied to explanation for character of the world, atomic and cosmological structure. So hopefully my essay will surprise you.

Are you aware of the latest evidence detailing the process which initiated life? That it is more complex than a molecule just having one day happened upon the ability to copy itself, and evolution takes over there on after. They think now that life emerged from systems which systematically churned out random RNA sequences, (no perfect copying) but then the random variations eventually delivered increasingly stable structures which persisted for longer durations. It is entirely compatible with your hypothesis, giving your essay a nice corroboration. And it might not be immediately obvious, but my hypothesis is also compatible with yours. Despite what it might first appear.

I would love for you to assess my essay and use your knowledge of Darwinian process test my idea, if you will please? And also test the physics I propose if you like? Testing is welcome and encouraged.

Steven Andresen

Dear Dr Paul Knott

Wonderful thinking ...... 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...... Best wishes to your essay....

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Paul,hi

Molecular genetics is usually considered as a foundation of Darwin theory. However, molecular genetics assumes a kind of Fundamentalness of the two simple facts - universality of genetic code and universality of Homochirality.

Because I think that Fundamentalness could be investigated systematically as any other subject - I attempted to investigate Homochirality in Human mathematics.

Michael A. Popov " Fundamentalness of Homochirality"

THANK YOU FOR ESSAY.

Nicely written Mr. Knott!

Permit me a couple of questions for a more clear understanding

1. "...but even quantum mechanics is time-symmetrical if no "measurements" are performed..." can you explain in few words what you meant? In my head, confusion arises when I look the term "symmetry" as a consequence (not strictly, but dependent) of "something measured". I mean, I can call something to be symmetrical only after I observe it. I think, though, that maybe you wanted to say something else , or there is something that I didn't get

2. "But we do not yet know how likely the emergence of life is, never mind the emergence of intelligent life" What kind of difference do you see between "life" and "intelligent life"?

3. "From this perspective, given only the fundamental laws of our universe and the arrangement of the particles within it, we can explain the emergence of the fantastic array of complex structures that fill our cosmos" what would it be fundamental in this perspective?

Until now, I think I can give you a 9, but I will wait for your replay on the first two questions mentioned above (as the third one more like a rhetorical one). Whatever the answers I will not rate less then 9

If you do have the time and patience for another (related) essay, here you have it.

Respectfully,

Silviu

You've been very clear about the first question, thank you.

regarding the second one, I can understand what you are saying but nevertheless you didn't point any direct differentiation between the two forms of life. The question remains "What is the difference?" or more precisely if you like "The simple life form, dose not posses any intelligence at all?"

Anyhow I rated you

Respectfully,

Silviu

Dear Paul

Did you get around to viewing my essay?

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Paul,

Dammit it got me again! Good answers. RNA wasn't against your conclusions just a test of your response to the notion I discussed last year.

My essay is Absolute Simplicity,

yet leads to a classical mechanism (string of interactions producing a 'measurement') reproducing QM which as you might imagine will take some concentration to first follow and hold in mind.

I've also just found the Poincare Sphere has the orthogonal momenta my experiment confirms, which is the first part many brains 'reject' through unfamiliarity.

See also Declan Traill's matching code and plot confirming the CHSH >2 violation. Shocking stuff!

Very best

Peter (Jackson - just in case!!)

Paul,

I popped my essay link above as requested (Jan 31 string) Hope you get to read it.

I hope we may well agree our essays are equally excellent. Mine's been hit with a few 1's and I think a gentlemen's agreement not to mark down is in order as we have the same score. I'm also interested in your comments. The Classic QM sequence is hard to hold in mind at frost so I've just put a 'check list' on my string to help.

Very well done for yours, and best of luck in the run in and judging.

Peter