|
|
|
|
JNLRMI Vol. II Nr. 1 February 2003
The Unity Theory of Evolution Stephen P. Smith*, Claire C. Smith **
Abstract. The unity theory of evolution is presented as a paradigm of global and cosmic learning, and it is contrasted with Darwin’s view based on reproductive competition and natural selection. Key assumptions are identified in each view, with the unity theory pointing to a deeper connection among all living things, and with survival-of-the-fittest pointing to a view based on random chance and innate separation. These assumptions are looked at deeply from a metaphysical perspective, and some surprising conclusions are discovered. Our acceptance of survival-of-the-fittest, perhaps even with complementary arguments from complexity theory, was premature as deeper issues have been left unresolved that question both the nature of time and random chance. A connection is made between the dynamics of information theory and metaphysical creativity, suggesting that subjective choice cannot logically be disentangled from the splitting of time symmetry, thus further suggesting that consciousness cannot be logically separated from the greater universe or from evolution itself. It is argued that the unity theory provides a more reasonable explanation of our shared observations. Therefore, the assumptions that underlie survival-of-the-fittest are relational and are reflective of a deeper mystery. Key words: Abduction, Active perception, Anthropic coincidence, Chaos theory, Choice, Consciousness, Creativity, Entropy, Information theory, Lamarckism, Maxwell’s demon, Self- referral, Subjectivity, Surprise, Synchronicity, Time.
1. Introduction Evolutionary theory explained very narrowly as survival-of-the-fittest is dependent on prior assumptions. It is dependent upon the assumption that agents act within an environment to serve their self-interests in a contest to leave the most offspring by a process called natural selection. It is dependent upon beliefs that anomalies can be explained by random chance, perhaps bringing in principles from complexity theory. These assumptions are referred to as the standard assumptions. They are not fundamentally different from assumptions that underlie the scientific method, where an observer is assumed to be independently separate from a subject of investigation. There is, however, a different way to view evolution, where our joint learning and cooperation are primary, and Darwinian competition is a reflection we find when we see ourselves separate from our greater world. Let us name this new view the unity theory. In this new theory evolutionary change is brought on by creative tensions that may be unknowable to us, but are tensions that spring from conflicts we all experience. The underlying assumptions of the unity theory is that there is a deeper level of unity among all living things, and that there is a deeper unity with the universe at large. The key assumption of the unity theory comes in the form of a tautology, that our sense of being is real because we experience things. Lamarckism is the belief in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which is similar to the unity theory. Both Lamarckism and the unity theory bring with them a life force, such as “freewill”. Nevertheless, the unity theory needs its own birth as Lamarckism has too narrow a focus. Given an exhaustive collection of mutually non-falsifiable beliefs, there is a natural tendency for us to split the symmetry along some line, subjectively choosing one side as real and the other side as relational. We don’t question the realness of these choices, but we do investigate reasonableness in terms of completeness, contradiction and ambiguity (Garvey 2003). A consequence is that the exercise points the way to creativity in mind and universe, thereby validating the unity theory from a shared perspective in that the theory is complete enough and is clearly defined. This paper demonstrates that the unity theory is unconflicted with known observations, pointing to a minimal break in the symmetry in our interpretations of causality. This implies that the standard assumptions are relational, in as much as they are not wrong. In Section 2 the topic of abduction is discussed, demonstrating the limits of both observation and the logical mind. Section 3 treats the topic of surprise, and it shows how surprise relates to both the complexities that are observed in our greater world and how it influences our logical mind at the limit of the knowable. What is behind surprise are coincidences that show themselves as conflicts discovered in our world-views that don’t fit to observation, and it is suggested that this surprise erupts from a life force in a way that contradicts the standard assumptions. Section 4 treats coincidences that are found in the evolution of life. The unity theory provides one way to reconcile our world-views with the observed coincidences, and details of this evolution are presented in Section 5. The presumed life force suggests some degree of backward causality, an issue that is treated in Section 6. The concluding Section 7 points to creativity in mind and universe. The scope of this paper is necessarily broadly shaped, but it is nevertheless a scientific view that has been severely suppressed by what resembles a blindness of the logical mind; a blindness that seeks only causes while forgetting purposes that have no cause. Therefore, the views in this paper are in urgent need of being heard by open ears, and in need of being subjected to the hardest test of time. Given the broad scope of this paper, it was necessarily to find much supporting evidence in the popular press. No apology is needed for these citations, however, as each reference carries with it its own history, and each carries its own litany of scientific references. It brings sadness that it was not possible to site everyone’s work, and there are countless scholars of philosophy and science that came before, including Albert Einstein, Teilhard de Chardin, Stephen J. Gould, Rodger Penrose, Ken Wilber and many others. It would be better to submit the present paper anonymously rather than hide the badly needed views from science, but first-person authors are needed given the necessary requirements of publication. Perhaps it is no accident that the same story seems to be told by many others, while strict forward-thinking turns a deaf ear.
2. Abduction In describing abduction as a concept it is helpful to turn to the scientific method, as there we will find many examples. The scientific method is not a monolithic structure of singular design. In fact the scientific method contains a plurality of views, and many different approaches, some good and some of questionable merit. The following are three commonly held approaches. I. The hypothesis testing view: To confirm theories or
predictions by making observations. This confirmation connects to surprise, or
statistical significance. Our prior assumptions that relate to the scientific method - in particular, that the observer is separate from an objective reality (View II), or that random chance explains everything (View III) - would seem to be non-falsifiable because in each case a frame of reference is missing that would permit objective testing. On closer inspection we see that View II is inconsistent with our scientific understanding of relativity in the greater universe (e.g., consider the issues Smolin 2001 wrestles with in Ch. 2), and so it is most probably false at a deeper level. View III may remain non-falsifiable because random chance could mean anything beyond the observation that non-caused events emerge with time passage. However, if by “reason” we are led to an adherence to forward causality that contradicts relativity by implying that cause explains purpose, then View III may also be false. But if “reason” is only a tool used to discover consistencies or inconsistencies, then View III returns to a possible non-falsifiable position. Views II and III may lead to a description of reality, and confusing such a description with actual reality is called abduction. Any description of reality is dependent upon an observer, lest relativity be ignored. Therefore, the subject cannot be removed from abduction if it is our intention to maintain a level of reasonableness. Alternatively, subjects could end up in an imaginary world that violates perceived relativity if abductions are chosen poorly. By Gödel’s incompleteness theorem we note that every mathematical system of sufficient complexity will carry some non-falsifiable axioms; this is unavoidable. True abductions are non-falsifiable if they carry these deeper axioms (assumptions) and are consistent with all known observations. Some abductions are plainly inconsistent with known observations, and others are conflicted or unconflicted depending on how they reflect on reality. This meaning of abduction relates to usage (1) in Display 1, but note the other uses too. We will return to these other uses in due course. Attempts to use Gödel’s theorem to prove that humans are not machines were defeated by computational reductionism due to the property of self-referral (Demski 1999, pages 216 -219). However, closed-minded humans can only be machines for abductions where relativity is violated such that cause explains purpose, and therefore, human-like machines cannot prove that all humans are such machines either. The fact that humans are subjects that hold purpose points again to abduction - as a subtle compromise between the infinite and the finite. The incompleteness theorem remains intact in as much as there are non-falsifiable tautologies that form systems of self-referral, systems that are open to subjective interpretation and differ only by perspective. Abductive systems are necessarily self-referencing, as is the case when we look at ourselves in a mirror, and are problematic beyond the issue of axiom choice. It is true that self-referencing might lead to a consistently closed logic system which is agreeable with computational reductionism, and this hypothetical logic systems need only mimic a perceived world build upon an adherence to relativism. Relativity is scientifically validated, but there remains an issue that is entirely subjective. Is this image of self-referral the real thing, or is it a mere reflection? We have argued that the relativistic image can only be a reflection, and therefore the subject is objectively real, lest we contradict the incompleteness theorem and relativity. Otherwise, we cannot disprove those that believe themselves to be mere machines or animals that were caused by randomness. And we note that in self-referral we may lose our ability to disprove our mistakes (see Thuan 2001, page 327); for example, claiming that our sense of selfness is an illusion when it is the only thing we can be certain of, or claiming we are beyond reproach when we lost sight of our purpose due to the blinding glare on the mirror. Statistical uncertainty makes logical decisions inseparable from subjectivity as described in Section 3, and this supports the view that non-falsifiable axioms relate to indeterminacy. Bayesian decision theory points to subjective utility functions and subjective prior probabilities that cannot be avoided when making decisions in the face of uncertainty. And Bayesian decision rules are consistent with rational behavior, and all such rational rules must be consistent with Bayesian rules (Berger 1985, Ch. 2). Uncertainty cannot be avoided, it is there at the quantum level with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and it is there at the macro level as chaos makes predictions with nonlinear systems unreliable. Therefore, subjectivity is objectively real as well. If we are looking at our plural selves in a mirror, there may only be but one of us. Therefore, we are likely abductions of ourselves, but perhaps only from the view of one. Abductions are good things, as all human thought is abductive and based on abstraction and surprise, i.e., usage (3) of Display 1, and abduction also provides usage (2) as a logic system which is consistent with View I of the scientific method. The question returns to intellectual honesty. And with this newly found honestly we might ask which usage (1) abductions find supporting evidence, and which abductions are most conflicted. This provides the needed adjustments to the scientific method to avoid abductive traps, confirming the clarity of View I over Views II or III. But we will also show that a presumed life force is surprisingly unconflicted, whereas views limited only to innate separation, forward logic and random chance have unresolved issues almost to the point of crisis - and this leads to usage (4).
3. Surprise Surprise has a clear statistical definition that relates to the degree of disorder. Highly ordered systems are considered surprising within a background of disorder, and hence surprise relates to entropy and the evolution of order from disorder. Surprise also relates to probability distribution functions and is measured as the negative log-probability, and defuse distributions show more average disorder and less average surprise. It is likely that surprise is needed for learning (Berns, McClure, Pagnoni and Montague 2001), and relational information then provides the interface between mind and physical reality. Sigfriend (2000) sees reality as information based too, but turns to the computer rather than the mind to complete his metaphor; note that his metaphor is strongly influenced by abduction, as is a view based on mind. When we intuitively see a coincidence we meet it with surprise, and this motivates us to explain the event by logic. And hence with learning we may explain a surprising event in terms of random chance. In this way, the surprise we discover when we interact with the world is an integral part of consciousness; we feel the creative tensions when we are surprised, and this motivates us to discover logical explanations. Therefore, surprise has connected to both logic and intuition. It has connected to information theory on one side, and it has connected to something invisible like Sigfriend’s computer. This implies that random chance is merely that part of manifestation that we cannot become aware of, creating a tautology between chance and awareness (Edis 2002). Note also that mathematically defined surprise does not imply that order will be surprising on the background of abundant order, or that disorder will be surprising on the background of abundant disorder. What is surprising depends on the associated probability distribution function and this is entirely influenced by both historical perspectives and perspectives that are emergent. If mathematically defined surprise connects to consciousness, it is likely the logical mind cannot see this consciousness beyond the surprise because we are looking at ourselves in self-referral thereby confusing random chance with uncaused purpose. Such a possibility is demonstrated if, for example, we speculate that Maxwellian demons exist. Apparently, science cannot disprove the existence of these demons, see for example Albert (Time and Chance 2000, Ch. 5). On page 109, Albert summarizes the properties of such demons. It is that they must be a collective part of the dynamic system, and sensitive to surprise in their conditions. This view of surprise is necessarily one of self-referral. These demons also have the property that they can split the time symmetry by their choices and change their condition in an unpredictable way (perhaps bringing much unanticipated confusion to the logical mind). And these choices may be irreversible as long as surprise continues to manifest in the future, so as not to violate the perceived second law of thermodynamics. We might be able to explain all of life and existence by complexity theory, without ever pointing to a demon. Everything would be due to random chance, as prescribed by View III of the scientific method. We would turn to the second law of thermodynamic and conclude that evolving systems tend to use up all available energy, hastening our fall into energetic disorder. There is much evidence to suggest this view (see Minkel 2002). And we might also point to reproductive fitness to explain the anomaly of how we end up with such energy efficient plants and animals because the second law of thermodynamics says little about how quickly this fall into disorder should occur beyond probabilistic predictions that relate to free bodies. The problem remains that we also see this tendency to efficiency in the biosphere as a whole, where Darwinian explanations are made difficult. Moreover, our greater universe is far from thermodynamic equilibrium and it appears held in a low entropy state by self organizing structures, as much as we can tell (see Smolin 1997, Ch. 11). Landauer‘s principle of information theory that tells us that it is easy to create information, but waste energy is always generated when information is erased (cfs. Sigfriend 2000). The information dynamics are not only driven by the second law, but also by a tendency not to waste surprising order if it can be avoided because waste-heat dispersion has limited value. Therefore, it is likely that living systems are responding to Landauer’s principle too, and this accounts for energy efficiencies we see in highly evolved ecosystems. But it is unclear how such a process can be explained by the random chance governing the second law, unless of course random chance has the aforementioned metaphysical quality. Landauer’s principle had been thought to disprove Maxwell’s demons, but what seems to be the case is that the principle only hid them from the logical mind. Demons may have the ability to send creative tensions backward in time to "correct" mistakes in the present that we never see except surprise in lieu of waste heat, just as "accidents" in the written past are discovered as answers provided that such an action meets enough surprise in the present. An investigation of this possible process in humans is provided by Radin (2000). A description of this possible process in the universe is presented in Section 6. Alternatively, if everything can be explained by random chance events that propagate non-relatively from that past, we might conclude that consciousness is a mere epiphenomenon and has no-choice making power of its own beyond the illusion of choice. This is where we find the first contradiction, and the first splitting of the time symmetry for ourselves involving a subjective choice. And if we agree that we fit the definition of a demon, we would conclude that they exist even in the smallest detail, having found our self to be one.
4. Coincidences Logical processes that describe evolution can be programmed unto a computer, and the running of such software may show all the things we expect, including adaptation and other dynamics of chaos. However, these logical processes provide an incomplete description of evolution in the absence of the background upon which they operate. In case of a computer simulation the background has been the computer, the programmer, and the note taker that reports the results. For evolution at large, the background is our greater world, our universe and the fabric of reality. In looking at the fabric of reality, Chapters 4 and 5 of Smolin (1997) are particularly interesting. In Chapter 4, Smolin writes of the gauge principle in physics that relates to fields that are defined by relationships among particles (such as electrons) while following the principle of sufficient reason. On page 52 we find it written, that “... this requires that in the description of the world we not be forced to make any choice unless there is a rational reason for making it one way or the other.” And if speaking of electrons we are unclear which is positive or which is negative (because the issue is only semantics), we note that a “... field whose existence is necessary to preserve our freedom to call charges positive or negative as we like is real: it is called the electromagnetic field.” And so the gauge principle sets up these equivalence classes (or fields) while maintaining the level of indeterminacy. Chapter 5 brings up the topic of string theory, which is the closest we have to a theory of everything. In the 1980’s string theorist had found a very beautiful way to extend the gauge principle to include relativity theory. This unification was called super-symmetry. But these great insights said little about how we ended up with a world like we have, a universe with stars with odds of only one in 10**229 (See pages 324-326 in Smolin). The parting of our ways with spontaneous symmetry slitting was left to random chance, or something that looks like random chance to us that are sufficiently unaware. On pages 71 and 72 Smolin writes: “... The problem seems to lie in the intrinsic conflict between the quest for unification and the imperative to understand why the different elementary particles and forces have such diverse and varied properties. The gauge theories manage to resolve that conflict. But they do it by introducing, for the first time, an effect by which some feature of the universe determines some of the properties of the elementary particles. By doing so, the theory takes a step away from the tenets of radical atomism, which holds that the properties of the elementary particles are completely independent of the history and the configuration of the universe.” Smolin concluded that even with our most complete theory that presumes natural law, we still find indeterminacy, and we still are left with coincidences we cannot easily explain away. There is something else going on in the background that makes up our greater universe, something that perceives plurality and yet has a deep quality of unity, something like the mythical demon. The conflict that results between relativistic perceptions and the overall communion with the whole extends to the greater cosmos, and it even extends to our thinking on the most significant questions left unresolved (Smolin 1997, Ch. 16). The mystery deepens when we consider that we are made of essential start dust, and we require sunlight to warm ourselves. Life as we know it depends on stars and our own sun, and a universe composed of such stars has such ridiculously low odds given what we currently know. Anomalies that contradict or give question to the standard assumptions can be described as a collection of coincidences (or surprises) that are difficult to explain by random chance alone, or difficult to explain when we insist on an innate separation of ourselves form the greater universe. So it is appropriate to look at these coincidences as supporting evidence for the unity theory, and we may also look beyond the evolutionary record to our greater universe as the hunt for the life force should be comprehensive; connecting to Smolin’s stars. The list of the coincidences that relate to life and biological complexity is staggering; a partial inventory is presented in Display 2. These anthropic coincidences might be ignored when Views II and III of the scientific method are adopted and unknowingly turned into abductions. To ignore these coincidences is to ignore our evolution, and this fails to meet the test of reasonableness. Furthermore, turning random chance into a religious faith, we might see life as incidental to the evolving universe, and we might see consciousness as incidental to life. We might also claim that Jung's synchronicity is undeserving of a closer look despite the accounts of Peat (1987) and of Combs and Holland (2001). But these presumptions merely show that we have abducted ourselves with views that we are separate from the world and that perceived random chance explains everything; we would have confused a description of reality (the program) with reality (program plus computer plus the people). Under the pretense of the weak anthropic principle, some say they have good reasons for ignoring these coincidences, claiming that we can assume as a given that we are already here looking back. In this way the conditional surprise becomes negligible. This is the logical fallacy called begging the question as it follows from self-abduction, leaving the criticisms of previous paragraph unaltered. The evidence is overwhelming, and it would appear that the standard assumptions find themselves most conflicted compared to the unity theory that is more whimsical in its description (see Section 5). Various theories have been floated to fill in the gaps in the theory of biological evolution. Kauffman’s (1995) principles of self-organization and McFadden’s (2001) quantum evolution are two. But from the point of view of abductive logic and epistemology, these views are indistinguishable from the unity theory even if they point to a radically different ontology such as the parallel worlds that McFadden gave hints to. Chaos theorists, such as Kauffman, attempt to find a logical basis for self-organization on the mirror of random chance. However, at this point the standard assumptions have gone the way of one thousand qualifications and have found themselves cut on Occam’s razor. But if logic has fallen to emotion, a close read of Section 6 reveals the expectation that logic reemerges as conflicts reconcile themselves in the event that the unity theory is correct. This is a sign that logic (that pertains to the standard assumptions, including strict causality) and intuition (pertains to assumptions that underlie the unity theory, including backward causality) are non-falsifiable, or perhaps falsifiable only when viewed in isolation. In the following section a closer look at evolution is made under the assumption that the unity theory is correct and explains the coincidences found in nature. One does need to consider alternative explanations including intelligent design (Dembski 1999), or other logical views of grand-scale evolution (e.g., Smolin 1997). But note that proving any of these views comes up against the deeper issues of self-referral and non-falsifiability, even if such views are found to be otherwise consistent with all known observations. Alternatively, the unity theory depends on a weak backward causality which seems to be a minimal quality that is open to subjective interpretations (i.e., causality is relative in that either strict forward causality is real, or it is seen as a reflection in a logical mind that perceives new order on a background of disorder). Resolution of this remaining quality can explain the coincidences and other irreducible complexities found in nature, and this aligns the unity theory with a weak teleology. This teleology demonstrates that creativity gives reason to purpose and questions that ask why, and it leaves the questions that ask how and what to those with allegiances to forward causality. The unity theory also depends on our spatial interconnectedness (see Capra 2002), but here our logical minds can see these connections as a snapshot in time.
5. Evolution Regarding creative tensions, it is known that placebo effects are real. It is also true that muscles will enlarge with use, but for a characteristic to be passed on to the next generation a memory of some kind must be left behind. The unity theory would be a process that builds on prior memories to bring new qualities into existence, and this process needs an existing framework that is logically perceived. The memories left behind to be passed onto the next generation have been the DNA, and as noted by McFadden (on page 264 and 265, among other places) there is published evidence of adaptive mutations that may have deeper connection with quantum measurements and perhaps even conscious choice. Steele, Lindley and Blanden (1998) have provided an up to date account of the theory of Lamarckism, including evidence of acquired immunological characteristics and the action of retrogenes. The possibility that memories require mass for storage is not unfamiliar with information theory as we seen with the Landauer principle a connection between energy and information. In this view memory requires a representation in matter, and perhaps the brain is another appendage needed for memory as is DNA. The mind therefore recalls prior events by connecting to information stored in the brain, as it connects to information stored in the DNA, and to our muscles that store yesterday’s fittest. Activity in the mind (qualia) leaves physical signatures in the brain that may relate to these memories. We have a brain and a physical body because we require actualization/localization to experience life, but this is not saying that the mind is contained in the brain. The unity theory can be described as the result of various forms of interactive learning vindicating Lamarck’s views about acquired characteristics but only in the most fundamental way. Kauffman’s autocatalytic cycles can be viewed as steps in learning, and McFadden’s quantum evolution of self directed life can be viewed in the same light; perhaps the immune system, developmental ontogeny, and memetics (Dawkins 1976) may also depict paradigms of learning. The evolution of the universe (Chaisson 2001), the evolution of cultures (Bloom 2000, Wright 2000 ) and human creativity also become expressions of a life force that facilitates learning. Such evolution may necessarily converge to produce intelligent life (Morris 2002). And this learning requires some form of interaction or communication, something that is observed even in the elementary particles. Neighboring electrons are known to repel each other by sending out a communicating photon, a photon that pops in and out of existence and requires no energy on balance. Science has hypothesized that all energy fields have these communicating links, even gravity. Smolin (2001, Ch. 4) describes the universe as a collection of processes and their relationships. This provides support for the view of Schwartz and Russek (1999) regarding communicating energy fields and life. Theories of the mind relate to these abstract communications as active perception (Thomas 1999): that we float metaphors and engage the world, and with enough confirmation and feedback we learn to communicate. These feedback loops eventually return complete, and if the unity theory is correct we understand these communications because deep down we share a oneness where the circuit is made complete. We communicate with things in the outside world because at a deeper level we are those things, though we are blinded in logical terms by self referral and sometimes think of ourselves as located in the brain. Otherwise, explaining language based communication is very hard in reductive terms, as Nadeau and Kafatos (1999, pages 163 -171) have noted. If the unity theory is correct then evolution can be described abstractly as a result of the conflict between the internal (first person) and the shared (third person), and consciousness permeates the universe as it is the life force. For example, if Maxwellian demons exist in the greater universe then it is likely that there may only be one true demon that traces its origin to the big bang. We possible cannot know of this singular demon directly because of the barrier of self-referral, noting that the past is only a mere reflection of this deeper mystery. If the unity theory is correct then survival-of-the-fittest is not wrong but incomplete. Regarding artificial selection, for example, the logical principles of plant and animal breeding remain intact, more or less. The issue returns to our place in the universe and how we see conflict. The unity theory does not defeat a logical description of evolution, it does however point to an invisible boundary among creative processes. The unity theory points to intuition as well as logic: intuition relates to unprovable axioms and emotions where logic relates to consistency and what is knowable. What drives the unity theory is a life force that relates to time, and a deeper consideration of time is something that logical descriptions of evolution sometimes lack.
6. Time With time passage we witness manifestation as one moment leads to the next. The logical passage of time is seen as an increase in entropy (or a decrease in surprise). Some have connected this passage to spontaneous symmetry splitting (e.g., Stenger 2000), but time remains as big a mystery as any anthropic coincidence. Garvey (1997) noted a dichotomy with knowing and being (existence), suggesting that we may only be able to know part of our greater self. This polarizes the universe into a knowable past and a flux of being (time). It is hypothesized that the being part of our self contains newly forming synergies, and apart from the surprises left in the written past the synergies are otherwise unknowable due to time reversal. So if this one life force (or one Maxwellian demon) exists at the deepest level, we can’t know of it beyond the clouds of chaos that form in the written past. And as cycles returns complete connecting the present to the past, strict causality meets new tensions that eventually erupt into new surprises pushing time again into perpetual flux. Among the coincidences of Display 2, the connection to time is implied by the way non-commutative coincidences seem to contradict logical cause-and-effect flow as if the event was already written in the book of truth. Critics of creationism ironically point to supporting evidence for the unity theory when they discover gate-keeper genes that regulate body form, suggesting that the genes for body form have “already” been written into the genetic code of our distant ancestors (Ronshaugen, McGinnis and McGinnis 2002). Mutations are thought to be preserved by the action of a protein labeled hsp90, and this permits the mutations to accumulate with time so that a characteristic can be found to be “already” written in the genetic code when the variation is needed in the future (Holmes 2002). Humans and Chimpanzees share a “coincidentally” large number of genes, as we do with other life forms, and our amazing differences may be due to the presumed “creative” use these genes (Enard et al. 2002). And the human genome may only have 50,000 genes, a surprisingly small number “already” written, but a number indicative of a high enough level of epistasis to allow all the complexities we see in ourselves to emerge. The second law of thermodynamics is not being violated necessarily by reverse-time causality when the present contains more surprise than the past (locally if not globally, and perhaps only at the realm of the quantum as Stenger argues on page 207). In the event when our greater self is more surprising in the present then tensions are sent backward across time (to reestablish perceived links with causality). And regarding this second law we can’t say that the universe is necessarily closed. It may only be that reality looks closed to us as we reflect on the written past (our knowable self is necessarily recorded in the past, see Albert 2000, Ch. 6), and while possibly fooling ourselves that everything has a logical cause and only such a cause from the past. An open universe may look like the one we have, loaded with unexplained coincidences and an endless supply of surprises. Quantum mechanics can be described in various ways that shows a dependence of the present on the past, and the past on the present, as Stenger did. Cramer (1986) describes transactional quantum mechanics which permits a backward and forward handshake in time, and Wolf (2001, Ch. 7) describes this time loop as it relates to consciousness. John Wheeler has demonstrated a delayed choice experiment where photos can retroactively acquire attributes in the distant past once a fresh observation is made in the present. Albert (2000, Ch. 7) speculates about a connection between the direction of time and quantum mechanical measurements (quantum shuffling to reconcile the present with the past, a past that finds its self open to augmentation), and Albert points to a reality where “random chance” enters only once and where Maxwellian demons cannot be absolutely excluded. Non-locality has also been demonstrated experimentally, suggesting that synchronistic attributes can be shared instantaneously across space (perhaps as a result of Cramer’s spatial and temporal handshake). This non-locality does not represent faster than light communication, but it does permit superluminal synchronization and it does, coincidentally, permit active perception. An interesting treatment of non-locality is presented in Nadeau and Kafatos (1999). A very important point is now recalled. One does not prove abductions, what we do is show them to be consistent (or unconflicted) with known observations. The unity theory is consistent with known observations, even with backward causality up to the point of symmetry splitting, a view that gives way to forward causality in the wake of a broken symmetry. The transactional mechanism that permits this remains just beyond our abilities of comprehension, but the fingerprints are found on what is perceived as forward causality. Whatever we make of backward time travel of surprising information, it is clear we experience something like “freewill”, whatever this quality might be. As a result, we predetermine part of our own future when we plan to go away on a trip, so we already are time travelers even if freewill is left undefined. And it is precisely this quality that relates to the presumed life force (see Davies 1992), and the qualities of self-directed life that McFadden has outlined. Gaia theory also points to a biosphere that has amazing abilities of self regulation (Margulis 1998), and there are countless other examples of self-directing biological organization leading to collectivism, e.q., migrating birds that fly south to over-winter. John Wheeler’s participatory anthropic principle, that the present selects the past in a weakly causal way, supports the unity theory.
7. Conclusions Both relativity theory and quantum physics provide the first hints that the observer is not safely separated from a presumed objective reality, e.g., note how observational perspective influences the result of the two slit experiment; see Section 3.2 of Bohm and Hiley (1993). Views of the quantum have been extended to consciousness, thus making consciousness the possible life force as hinted in a number of popular science books (e.q., Wolf 2001, Walker 2000, Goswami 1995, de Quincey 2002). The weight of the evidence is significant, and each of these books carries a comprehensive bibliography. A life force is consistent with a Divine directive force that takes us to an omega point, but there is an important distinction that pertains to choice. A life force merely implies that creativity exists in mind and universe (e.g., Peat 2000). Such creativity shows qualities that are much less suggestive of a rational God, even if they point to an obvious artistic temperament. The answers we find stop just short of proving the existence of such a Divine and leaves the question open to us, and we choose our own future by selecting memories from the past. If indeed there is a God, then an artistic God would likely be wise enough to let us learn on our own time, as if there was nothing at all. A deeper purpose to life becomes a question of awareness and creative tensions become very subtle, but at the most holistic level of consciousness there may only be one life force that can be synchronized (see Wolf 1999, Ch. 12). This is called the one-mind model. If the unity theory is correct then we are not separate from reality, and we are part of the bigger whole while observing ourselves in self-referral. In this case Darwin’s interpretation of evolution is incomplete, and inside out. Evolution is not merely about competition as implied by a logical perspective, evolution is about our cooperation and higher consciousness and perceived competition follows from that. In the event that we face first-person comparisons involving several abductions, there is this last point that cannot be stressed enough, that there is no fool proof recommendation on which abduction to adopt because a singular view is unable to second guess the creative tensions we all feel. Aside from what is already indicated, how we abduct ourselves is entirely a subjective choice. But presumably we place ourselves into our own abduction that finds the least conflicts, thus maintaining our plurality of views in such a way that is agreeable with Smolin (2001, Ch. 3). Maxwell’s demon may be able to focus on order when there are some bipolar perceptions that see disorder. But this attention to order implies a balanced first-person and third-person perspective, and it was the purpose of this paper to present only a third-person discussion of the unity theory.
Acknowledgments This paper is dedicated to the human race, and our possible harmony. The writing of this paper involved the sharing of ideas with numerous friends, including D’Arcy Henderson, Damir Ibrisimovic, Paul M. Helfrich, Janice B. Paulsen, Greg Stone, Donivan Bessinger, Brian Rothery, Beatrix Murrell and Mary Marguerite. Their inputs were most appreciated.
* President of Rodgers Land and Development Company Napa,
CA
References
J.D. Barrow and F.J. Tipler, 1986, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Oxford University Press. O.J. Berger, 1985, Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis, 2nd edition, Springer-Verlag, New York. G.S. Berns, S.M. McClure, G. Pagnoni and P.R. Montague, 2001, Predictability Modulates Human Brain Response to Reward, The Journal of Neuroscience, 21(8), 2793-2798. D. Bohm and B.J. Hiley, 1993, The Undivided Universe, Routledge. H. Bloom, 2000, Global Brain, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. E.J. Chaisson, 2001, Cosmic Evolution: the Rise of Complexity in Nature, Harvard University Press. A. Combs, and M. Holland, 2001, Through the Eyes of Science, Myth and the Trickster: Synchronicity, Marlowe & Company. J.G. Cramer, 1986, The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics 58, 647-688. P. Davies, 1992, The Mind of God, Touchstone. R. Dawkins, 1976, The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press. W.A. Dembski, 1999, Intelligent Design, InterVarsity Press. W.A. Dembski (edited by), M. Behe, D. Berlinski, P. Johnson, H. Ross and others, 1998, Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design, InterVarsity Press. M.J. Denton , 1998, Nature’s Destiny, The Free Press. C. de Duve, 1995, Vital Dust, Basic Books. C. de Quincey, 2002, Radical Nature, Invisible Cities Press. T. Edis, 2002, An Accidental World, Free Inquiry Magazine, 22 (4), 57-58. W. Enard, P. Khaitovich, J. Klose, S. Zöllner, F. Heissig, P. Giavalisco, K. Nieselt-Struwe, E. Muchmore, A. Varki, R. Ravid, G.M. Doxiadis, R.E. Bontrop, and S. Pääbo, 2002, Intra- and Interspecific Variation in Primate Gene Expression Patterns, Science, Apr 12, 340-343. S. Garvey, 1997, I Am Existence, Inexpressible Publications. S. Garvey, 2003, The Critique of Reasonableness, A Method to End Partiality, Inexpressible Publications. A, Goswami, 1995, The Self-Aware Universe, Jeremy P. Tarcher. B. Holmes, 2002, Ready, steady, evolve, The New Scientists, September 28, 28-31. S. Kauffman, 1995, At Home in the Universe, Oxford University Press. L. Margulis, 1998, Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution, Basic Books. S.C. Morris, 2002, We Were Meant to Be …, The New Scientists, November 16, 26-29. J. McFadden, 2001, Quantum Evolution: The New Science of Life, W.W. Norton & Company. J.R. Minkel, 2002, The Purpose of Life, New Scientists, October 5, 30-33. R. Nadeau, and M. Kafatos, 2000, The Non-Local Universe: the New Physics and Matters of the Mind, Oxford University Press. F.D. Peat, 1987, Synchronicity, Bantam Books. F.D. Peat, 2000, The Blackwinged Night, Perseus Publishing. D.I. Radin, 2000, Time-reversed Human Experience: Experimental Evidence and Implications, Boundary Institute Technical Report, Los Altos, CA. M. Ronshaugen, N. McGinnis, and W. McGinnis, 2002, Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan, Nature, 415, 914-917. G. E.R. Schwartz, and L.G.S. Russek, 1999, The Living Energy Universe, Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc. T. Siegfried, 2000, The Bit and The Pendulum: From Quantum Computing to M Theory - The New Physics of Information, John Wiley & Son, Inc. L. Smolin, 1997, The Life of the Cosmos, Oxford University Press. L. Smolin, 2001, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, Perseus Book Group. E.J. Steele, R.A. Lindley and R.V. Blanden,1998, Lamarck’s Signature, Perseus Books. V.J. Stenher, 2000, Timeless Reality, Prometheus Books. N.J.T. Thomas, 1999, Are Theories of Imagery Theories of Imagination? An Active Perception Approach to Conscious Metal Content, Cognitive Science, 23, 207-245. T.X. Thuan, 2001, Chaos and Harmony: Perspective on Scientific Revolutions of the Twentieth Century, Oxford University Press. C.H. Yu, 1994, Abduction? Deduction? Induction? Is there a logic of exploratory data analysis? Presented at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, April. E.H. Walker, 2000, The Physics of Consciousness: Quantum Minds and the Meaning of Life, Perseus Publishing. R. Wesson, 1991, Beyond Natural Selection, The MIT Press. F.A. Wolf, 1999, The Spiritual Universe, Moment Point Press. F.A. Wolf, 2001, Mind into Matter, Moment Point Press. R. Wright, 2000, Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, Vintage Books.
Display 1. Various meaning of the word abduction as found in philosophy. (1) Abduction can represent a cage we put ourselves in, and sometimes we get stuck in our own non-falsifiable world not knowing of the conflicts that are generated in the shared world. True abductions are said to be non-falsifiable, but there are other examples such as a belief in alien abductions that may serve as a cage. To break out of these cage-like abductions takes new tensions that may need to come from the perceived outside. These come in the form of new observations that other people might provide as the singular view of the duly abducted may be too narrow to see outside of the cage. Tensions can also come in the form of art and songs, as we are told about things that only our subconscious is willing to tolerate. (2) Abduction as a logic system: We use our creativity to invent new theories, then we test these theories by comparing predictions to actual observations (induction), lastly we use deduction to represent the theory with causal links that flow form past to future (Yu 1994). This forms a cycle that flows both forward and backward through time, as the answer always comes to us first as an insight that is loaded with the surprise that can be traced to realizations in the unfolding future. This cycle is important in active perception, where we form expectations based on prior beliefs and then we receive confirmation about those beliefs. And with this abductive logic we go through life adjusting our belief set. Given that Gödel taught us that we cannot prove all of our beliefs, then abductive logic works up to the point of non-falsification which will lead possibly to another splitting of the symmetry (a non-falsifiable belief has a converse which is necessarily non-falsifiable as well, and this pair forms a symmetry prior to splitting). Perfect symmetries are unstable, so as creative tensions build, new surprises tend to be discovered that turn a non-falsifiable belief into something that is falsifiable and open to scientific investigation. (3) The spark of creativity in mind, as for example when an artist paints: The artist will take metaphors of shapes and colors that have some form in the written past, and he or she will bring these into a new form in the present. The artistic presentation brings out the synergies of the written past, and projects an image that surprises an onlooker by reflecting artistic beauty. Therefore, abduction is a driving instinct that moves against a fall into disorder, and it leads to the discovery of new order from holistic unions. This is called creativity, and other examples of creative expressions are choice and the exercise of our will. Surprise seems to coax these expressions into manifestation, as hypothesized by C.S. Pierce. (4) The spark of creativity in universe, as for example the spontaneous splitting of time symmetry: With the perceived passage of time the past is abducted into the present, or the past is rewritten into the present, as speculated in John Wheeler's participatory anthropic principle. The motion of free bodies are said to evolve to a higher state of entropy (i.e., ever decreasing levels of surprise), but this is likely a perspective that can be reflected and flipped as the view is relational. It may only be that bodies that show no collective properties are increasingly unsurprising in the macro condition, and in the absence of new synergies the written past will fade like old memories as time's perceived arrow takes all of us to new perspectives that show more surprise. And so surprise can still coax out “art” in the greater universe (i.e., splitting of time symmetry), leading to the suggestion that consciousness permeates the universe (de Quincey 2002), and also explaining all the anomalies that have been identified in the evolutionary record of life, as well as explaining Jung's synchronicity.
Display 2. A partial list of anthropic coincidences, and other coincidences of evolution and life. The view that the parameters of the standard model of particle physics have been fined tuned, leading to a universe of stars among many other things, was postulated by Barrow and Tipler (1986). Advocates of Intelligent Design have now made an industry out of collecting anthropic coincidences as can be found in the contributed papers in Dembski et al. (1998). For example, on pages 372 to 375 Ross collected 29 of them, and then produces a second list of 45. Bond angles permit ice to float on water, meaning that ice does not sink and this is a property unlike any other solid. If ice would sink to the bottom of oceans the earth would rarely warm up, making earth a cold planet not hospitable to life as we know it (McFadden 2000, page 99). The carbon cycle and the ocean currents are though to have help stabilized the world’s climates, and in particularly stabilized temperatures significantly over the last 10,000 years during a time when human cultures emerged. Take away our moon, and earth’s axis of rotation becomes unstable, leading to unpredictable and extreme exposures to sunlight and darkness on the earth’s surface (Thaun 2001, pages 37-38). Life would be miserable. S.F. Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe described spontaneous generation as the random gathering of proteins to bring forward the first example of life on earth, such as a bacterium (See Kauffman 1995, page 44). The odds of such an event were found to be ridiculously low, leading biologists to come up with alternative theories. Other alternative views might improve the odds of generating life, including such things as the interaction with chemical memories and liquid-filled membranes (Margulis 1998, Ch. 5). The evolutionary record is loaded with anomalies showing the dynamics of chaos and the emergence of extreme complexity (Wesson 1991, de Duve 1995). Chemical structures such as DNA, proteins, biochemical processes, physiological processes and structures, our conscious ability to reflect on our greater world, all point to an “unlikely” dependence on our universe and a dependence on the sunlight and the elements so generated (Denton 1998).
|
|
|