Universal Evolution

[QED]

Of all the facts known to science, one of the most startling has to be the apparently arbitrary but highly critical values possessed by the physical constants.

For example if the gravitational constant was too low stars would not shine. If higher then stars would burn up too fast using up all their fuel before life had a chance to evolve on planets in orbit around them. Likewise, if the electromagnetic coupling constant had been lower, electrons would not stay in orbit around atomic nuclei. If higher, electrons would not bond with other atoms. Also, if the strong force coupling constant holding particles together in the atomic nucleus were weaker, then multi-proton particles would not be viable and the only element in the Universe would be Hydrogen. If stronger the only element in the universe might be Iron. Complex molecules are thus only possible in a narrow range of conditions.

This gives rise to the notion of a high degree of "fine tuning" required in order to bring about a universe suitable for life. The properties of the universe that we currently enjoy emerge directly from these apparently "carefully chosen" values and even the tiniest changes would preclude life from ever appearing. Some people look upon all this as a clear indication of there having been some supreme designer who sensitively adjusted a set of cosmic dials at the inception of the universe in order that it would be long lived and bountiful. Sadly not much can be said or done to test this hypothesis, and as such it remains a non-scientific explanation.

However there are other theories as to why we might find ourselves in such an apparently carefully designed universe. And thankfully some of these ideas come with their own methods of verification which means that they do not have to remain purely speculative. This is a vital distinction because some people seem to be under the impression that there are limits to knowledge when it comes to matters relating to universal origins and this is not necessarily the case.

For example, in one idea developed by Professor Lee Smolin, natural selection becomes responsible for all the apparent Intelligent Design of our universe in the same way that natural selection explains the apparent design of living things. Essentially what he is saying is that there exist many universes, just as there exist many animals and that universes, like animals, have a system of reproduction with some universes being more efficient than others at creating progeny. At the heart of his theory are black holes which are produced by certain types of dying stars.

Along with Alan Guth, Smolin suggests that when viewed from the other side of their event horizons black holes look like new inflating universes. If the laws of nature in each new universe relate to those of the parent natural selection will step in to "fine tune" the physical constants over many generations such that universes large enough and complex enough to form stars of the right composition will dominate over those with less favourable tuning for black hole production.

As a consequence any universe that we happen to find ourselves in would tend towards being one in which the physical constants were tuned towards values resulting in something approaching a maximum for black hole production. This is where the potential for validation comes in: If the theory is to remain standing then changes in the physical constants ought to result in a reduction of black hole production. If changes were available which increased production then we would have to ask why natural selection had not gone down this route already. So far Smolin's theory has withstood this test to an impressive degree. Theoretical tweaking of the constants both above and below the known values do indeed reduce the number of black holes that would result.

Does this not demonstrate then that science can look beyond what might seem like brick-walls and, while not delivering us with certainties, can deliver us with likelihoods and probabilities that exceed all reasonable doubts?

(I've started this new debate topic in order to draw off-topic discussion along these lines away from the Hovind/Callahan Debate)

[Rob]

[Disclaimer: I have absolutely no interest in arguing the Anthropic Principle as setup in the opening of this thread. Nevertheless, the history of science, the philosophy of science, and the newly developing and firmly established field of developmental evolutionary biology all provide evidence that shows the erroneous nature of Smolin's use of natrual selection.]

Pennsylvania State University physics professor Lee Smolin espouses a new theory of cosmology in his book 'The Life of the Cosmos.' Smolin asserts that the creation of the universe was neither accidental nor divinely instituted. He believes that the biological principles of evolution and natural selection also operate on a cosmological scale. He argues that the cosmos evolves toward the most beneficial conditions for the perpetuation of black holes. He believes that those conditions also foster the development of life. Many experts object to both the metaphysics and the physics of Smolin's theory.

-- Vincent Kiernan. The Chronicle of Higher Education v43.n49 (August 15, 1997): ppA13(2).

[juliod]

Isn't there a specific rule here about cut-and-paste responses?

http://www.americanscientist.org/templa ... GZSv-Kscqh

DanZ

[Cathar1950]

I don't know. I do see a lot of repetition and preaching. Also quotes that are meaningless and off topic. And then there are those that quote themselves. What is up with that? They quote themselves and give themselves credit and quote some one else with out at least a name.
Then there is the same quote coming from many people.
Thiss is proof that evolution is not alway better and superior. If there is something to eat or a free lunch something will adapt and make do.
I have to go sing karaoke..because I promised. Talk about guilt.
It xmas time and I got to be jolly. But I only said I was coming back so I could get away. Did I ever tell you about the UB? I guess in their forward or introduction they quoted almost verbatim Charles Hartshorn. Didn't give him credit and claimed it was from "supermortals". If I have an idea I don't care who uses it or if I get credit. If I have read or heard something I try to give credit if I can remember. Hopefully I have the passage in front of me. I remember reading a book by Eric Fromm in my 30's. I thought ow this guy sounds like me. Then some time later my mom was tossing out my stuff as moms tend to do (except the crap they save you wish they would toss) and I found a few books by Fromm. Underlined noted and comments. I went "Dah", so that is where I got it. It had become part of me. I didn't know the source. then read everything I could find he wrote. I have al those books. That is how I feel about others only I remember but it is not as intimate as the discovery of my thoughts.
Is this still on topic? It does say"Universal Evolution". That covers a lot of area.

[McCulloch]

The two greatest achievements of 20th-century physics are quantum theory--a theory of t...g for anyone interested in the problem of quantum gravity and the future of theoretical physics.

Paul Renteln is a professor in the physics department at California State University, San Bernardino.

Rule 8
Extensive quotes from another source (particularly other websites) should state the source to avoid plagarism. I don't think that this extensive quote is adequately sourced. A link to the source would have been adequate. But a mention that this is a review of Lee Smolin's Three Roads to Quantum Gravity done by Paul Renteln in American Scientist online would have been more appropriate.

[ST88]

Of all the facts known to science, one of the most startling has to be the apparently arbitrary but highly critical values possessed by the physical constants....

However there are other theories as to why we might find ourselves in such an apparently carefully designed universe. And thankfully some of these ideas come with their own methods of verification which means that they do not have to remain purely speculative....

As a consequence any universe that we happen to find ourselves in would tend towards being one in which the physical constants were tuned towards values resulting in something approaching a maximum for black hole production....

Does this not demonstrate then that science can look beyond what might seem like brick-walls and, while not delivering us with certainties, can deliver us with likelihoods and probabilities that exceed all reasonable doubts?

There is such a discipline as theoretical physics, in which the real-world experience of experimentation with physics can be described in mathematical terms, then extrapolated to given situations that are inherently non-experimental for one reason or another -- such as what happens in a Black Hole.

Sadly, the Anthropic Principle assures us that reverse-engineering the universe is not exclusively a scientific endeavor. Though I think it's not quite correct to state that anything we can't see is within the realm of cosmology, it is correct to state that anything we can't prove might be. But then, we don't know what discoveries and techniques are going to be coming down the pike to help us prove those things which are currently beyond our reach.

[Rob]

[Disclaimer: I have absolutely no interest in arguing the Anthropic Principle as setup in the opening of this thread. Nevertheless, the history of science, the philosophy of science, and the newly developing and firmly established field of developmental evolutionary biology all provide evidence that shows the erroneous nature of Smolin's use of natrual selection.]

Pennsylvania State University physics professor Lee Smolin espouses a new theory of cosmology in his book 'The Life of the Cosmos.' Smolin asserts that the creation of the universe was neither accidental nor divinely instituted. He believes that the biological principles of evolution and natural selection also operate on a cosmological scale. He argues that the cosmos evolves toward the most beneficial conditions for the perpetuation of black holes. He believes that those conditions also foster the development of life. Many experts object to both the metaphysics and the physics of Smolin's theory.

-- Vincent Kiernan. The Chronicle of Higher Education v43.n49 (August 15, 1997): ppA13(2).

One of those experts is Joseph Silk, who provides some interesting insights regarding "metaphysical cosmology," saying:

The universe is a self-organizing entity. There we have the essence of Lee Smolin's admittedly speculative explanation of everything, from the laws of physics to the origin of intelligent life and even an alternative to God Herself.

(....) Smolin posits that black holes provide the underlying solution to how our universe came to be as it is. The argument proceeds as follows. Every time a black hole forms, a new universe is spun off deep within. Fine so far; this we believe as disciples of Stephen Hawking. Within these universes, the constants of nature suffer small but random changes every time a black hole forms and a new universe develops. The most probable universe emerges from this evolutionary sequence with the maximal number of evolutionary pathways, and hence black holes. We are at the peak of a grand cosmic summit of natural selection of the laws of physics. And--here is the beauty of the argument--such a course of events is inevitable: we are the outcome. Not a bad postulate if it is testable, which Smolin argues to be the case. For example, one need only search for the black holes.

Sadly, however, the challenge Smolin poses fails at almost every encounter with astronomical reality. Our universe is far--by about four orders of magnitude, or a factor of 10,000--from being optimally loaded with black holes. Most cosmologists are convinced that enhancing the amplitude of primordial density fluctuations would enhance the black hole fraction. We are very far from saturation. Smolin's response to this criticism is an appeal to self-regulation of the inflaton, the field responsible for inflation, a concept that is beyond any present physics of which I am aware. He argues that small changes in fundamental parameters won't do much. That is simply untrue. Tilt the spectral index of primordial fluctuations blueward by 10 percent and one would fill the early universe with collapsed objects, possibly destined to make black holes. Even worse, imagine adding the tiniest admixture of black holes early on. Perhaps during an early phase transition some rare horizon volume received a fatal compression that pushed it over the precipice of black hole formation. The primordial black holes conserve their mass as the dominant relativistic energy density of the universe redshifts away. The result: one in a billion, even one in a trillion, is all it might take in terms of large primordial horizonscale overdensities to result in a universe that today is vastly overloaded with black holes compared to what we see around us.

And dare I mention star formation? Smolin exposes the hazards for a quantum cosmologist of dabbling in murky waters that are governed more by astronomical common sense than by fundamental physics. He asserts that carbon is needed to form stars. Think of the obvious counter example, us or, more specifically, our antecedents, namely the first stars, or for that matter the metal-poor halo stars, which are as close to being carbon-free as makes a shred of difference to gas cooling. Nor need this be a puzzle: hydrogen cools as efficiently as does carbon, albeit at a higher temperature. But there is no limit to how small or large a lump of hydrogen one could fabricate, short of making snowballs of solid hydrogen, and stellar masses are well within the range of possibility.

And then there is feedback, a continuing theme. Feedback is crucial to self-organization. But would it not be advisable to know the sign of the feedback? Negative and positive feedback could differentiate ants from whales, or a Big Crunch from a Big Bang. It may suffice to give an example of the alarmingly large astrophysical uncertainties: reduce the number of supernovae, and one diminishes feedback. In this case the gas collapses with higher efficiency, making more stars and more black holes. This is quite the opposite of what Smolin tells us: no supernovae, no carbon, no stars, no black holes. Which is the truth and which is the fallacy? Nobody knows.

Perhaps these awkwardnesses offer a cautionary tale for physicists with cosmological inclinations, indicating the pitfalls of dabbling in other disciplines before constructing a more solid edifice. Of course, metaphysical cosmology is a well-trodden path, and Smolin is by no means the first to pursue it. No doubt this explains why his tome has received some surprisingly resounding endorsements, and I must admit, finally, that the book is worth reading, if only to see how a brave pioneering spirit can conjure up impressive mirages of the ultimate theory.

-- -- The Life of the Cosmos. Joseph Silk. Science v277.n5326 (August 1, 1997): pp644(1).

Smolin also "exposes the hazards for a quantum cosmologist of dabbling in murky waters that are governed more" by developmental biology (evo-devo) and actual scientific evidence than by metaphysical speculation passed of as scientific theory. One of the hazards of overspecialization is that it leads to the one eyed philosopher (metaphysics), who lacks depth of field, and lacking any nuanced understanding of the current state of another field, in this case developmental biology, erroneously extrapolates concepts into contexts in which they do not apply. Here, Smolin takes natural selection as a dogma, with little realization that not only in the past (Darwin himself was a pluralist with regards to evolutionary mechanisms), but even more so in light of recent scientific discoveries, natural selection as the sole mechanism (or perhaps even the cause) of novelty in biological evolution is open to serious question in light of recent scientific discoveries in developmental evolutionary biology (evo-devo).

Darwin has often been depicted as a radical selectionist at heart who invoked other mechanisms only in retreat, and only as a result of his age's own lamented ignorance about the mechanisms of heredity. This view is false. Although Darwin regarded selection as the most important of evolutionary mechanisms (as do we), no argument from opponents angered him more than the common attempt to caricature and trivialize his theory by stating that it relied exclusively upon natural selection. In the last edition of the Origin, he wrote (1872, p. 395):

As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position-namely at the close of the introduction-the following words: "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main, but not the exclusive means of modification." This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misinterpretation.

— Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1872, p. 395)

— Gould, Stephen J., & Lewontin, Richard C. (1979) The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON, SERIES B, VOL. 205, NO. 1161, PP. 581-598.

Darwin was far to an intelligent a man to be so arrogant as to believe he had discovered the one and only possible mechanism of evolution. Yet, for sometime now the claim that Darwin attributed natural selection as the sole mechanism of evolution has been often repeated, by both Neo-Darwinists as well as their foes. Time makes fools of dogmatists though, and the newly developing science of Evolutionary Developmental Biology (evo-devo) is going to put this oft repeated myth to rest, once and for all.

And now, and I got a real chuckle as I read this post above, we have another example of what Gould calls "just so stories" coming from the "Adaptationist Programme" which he critiques in the referenced essay above, which among other sources I will draw upon to expose the misuse by Smolin of the concept of natural selection. Shortly, I will present abundant evidence from the field of Developmental Evolutionary Biology which will underscore the absurdity of Smolin's misplaced heuristic and abuse of natural selection in his speculative metaphysical cosmology.

[QED]

What a wonderful response this thread gotten in my short absence! First there's something I need to clear up: I put together this topic not so much to debate this particular theory of Smolins (although it is very interesting) but to use it as an example of how such a theory might provide scientists and cosmologists with ways to validate any hypothesis in question.

We can contrast this with the anthropic principle (which I think Rob has mistaken fro Smolin's theory) which is uninteresting due to being unprovable. Indeed, I think most reasonable people would agree that any hypothesis having no practical test for its validity would be worthless as a satisfactory explanation for anything.

Notice, however, how Silk is able to use information such as "the universe being four orders of magnitude from being optimally loaded with black holes" to refute Smolin's theory. Whether or not this information is correct (something that can in principle be settled using regular physics) it plays the game by the rules. This is the essence of this debate... for if Silk were ever to revise his estimate in the light of better physics then we might be faced with a remarkable coincidence (the optimal fitness of the physical constants for black hole production) and this would be telling us something about the significance of black holes.

I cannot stress this enough (because we have already lost sight of the point I've been trying to make here). It needn't be this particular theory put forward by Smolin, it needn't be universes springing out of black holes... but whatever theory of universal origin is proposed, if it manages to explain things that otherwise could only be seen as coincidental, then we might have powerful reasons to accept such a theory as a satisfactory explanation.

And now, and I got a real chuckle as I read this post above, we have another example of what Gould calls "just so stories" coming from the "Adaptationist Programme" which he critiques in the referenced essay above, which among other sources I will draw upon to expose the misuse by Smolin of the concept of natural selection. Shortly, I will present abundant evidence from the field of Developmental Evolutionary Biology which will underscore the absurdity of Smolin's misplaced heuristic and abuse of natural selection in his speculative metaphysical cosmology.

This is off topic of course but it's rather fascinating how it would seem that you imagine all such applications of natural selection to be, a priori, a "misplaced heuristic". I wonder how you feel about the use of natural selection in the optimization of turbine blades, railway timetables and other design tasks

[Rob]

However there are other theories as to why we might find ourselves in such an apparently carefully designed universe. And thankfully some of these ideas come with their own methods of verification which means that they do not have to remain purely speculative. This is a vital distinction because some people seem to be under the impression that there are limits to knowledge when it comes to matters relating to universal origins and this is not necessarily the case.

For example, in one idea developed by Professor Lee Smolin, natural selection becomes responsible for all the apparent Intelligent Design of our universe in the same way that natural selection explains the apparent design of living things.

(....) Does this not demonstrate then that science can look beyond what might seem like brick-walls and, while not delivering us with certainties, can deliver us with likelihoods and probabilities that exceed all reasonable doubts?

QED has presented Smolin's metaphysical speculation as an example of science looking beyond "brick-walls" and delivering us with "likelihoods and probabilities that exceed all reasonable doubt." Of course, this claim begs the real question which is what constitutes the methods and means of science in its quest for knowledge, such that its findings would constitute "probabilities that exceed all reasonable doubt." This is a philosophy of science question, which will shed light on both Smolin's metaphysical speculation as well as the unaddressed assumptions in QED's question/claim above.

I put together this topic not so much to debate this particular theory of Smolins (although it is very interesting) but to use it as an example of how such a theory might provide scientists and cosmologists with ways to validate any hypothesis in question.

(....)I think most reasonable people would agree that any hypothesis having no practical test for its validity would be worthless as a satisfactory explanation for anything.

It needn't be this particular theory put forward by Smolin, it needn't be universes springing out of black holes... but whatever theory of universal origin is proposed, if it manages to explain things that otherwise could only be seen as coincidental, then we might have powerful reasons to accept such a theory as a satisfactory explanation.

An examination of how scientists "validate any hypothesis in question" would first begin, one might think, with defining one's terms precisely (as best one can), such as fact, evidence, hypothesis, testing, theory, etc., for based upon a clear understanding on what forms knowledge and methodologies constitute the human endeavor called science. In other words, what does it mean to "play the game by the rules?"

Smolin takes the biological concept of natural selection, which we will evaluate from a philosophy of science and philosophy of biology perspective, and applies it universally, even uncritically, to the domain (physics and the inanimate universe), a move which itself is highly suspect in light of recent discoveries in developmental biology. This is poor science; in fact, it is a form of scientism, even pseudoscience; i.e., speculative metaphysics being passed off as scientific theory. It makes for good entertainment and popular science, but it doesn't make for lasting contributions to the furtherance of our understanding. And the evidence, I believe will show this, and that is very relevant to the core question of this thread contrary to QED's claim,

This is off topic of course but it's rather fascinating how it would seem that you imagine all such applications of natural selection to be, a priori, a "misplaced heuristic". I wonder how you feel about the use of natural selection in the optimization of turbine blades, railway timetables and other design tasks.

It is ironic that you claim I am assuming "all such applications of natural selection to be, a priori, a 'misplaced heuristic'", when in fact the evidence will show the exact opposite; those such as Smolin assume "a priori" that natural selection appropriately can be applied to any and all levels and domains, including the entire universe. As Gould's own words will show, and as a close examination of the philosophy of biology and developmental biology will show, this is a mistaken "a priori" assumption and extrapolation from one level (where it is appropriate) to another level where it is questionable (even being questioned by scientists) whether such an extrapolation is warranted.

[QED]

QED has presented Smolin's metaphysical speculation as an example of science looking beyond "brick-walls" and delivering us with "likelihoods and probabilities that exceed all reasonable doubt."

Not quite, I presented it as an example of the sort of theory that had the potential to deliver us with likelihoods and probabilities that exceed all reasonable doubt.

Of course, this claim begs the real question which is what constitutes the methods and means of science in its quest for knowledge, such that its findings would constitute "probabilities that exceed all reasonable doubt." This is a philosophy of science question, which will shed light on both Smolin's metaphysical speculation as well as the unaddressed assumptions in QED's question/claim above.

I have to say that it looks very much as if you don't like the idea that cosmology might not be hemmed in by the constraints of this particular universe. What grounds might there be for upholding such an objection I wonder

An examination of how scientists "validate any hypothesis in question" would first begin, one might think, with defining one's terms precisely (as best one can), such as fact, evidence, hypothesis, testing, theory, etc., for based upon a clear understanding on what forms knowledge and methodologies constitute the human endeavor called science. In other words, what does it mean to "play the game by the rules?"

OK, let's go round the block with Smolin's "Metaphysical speculation" one more time -- but don't forget, this is just one example of how a theory might extend our knowledge beyond an apparently impenetrable divide such as the origin of this universe (incidentally Smolin isn't the only cosmologist who believes that science and logic are capable of breaking down epistemological barriers erected by philosophers, Gribben would be another heretic in this respect and I think a small amount of research would produce a rather longer list).

But let's stick with what we've got so far: The physical constants seem arbitrary yet incredibly sensitive at the same time. Then along comes a cosmologist wondering if natural selection might account for all the apparent design (I can see no excuse to criticize this general approach except perhaps for some bizarre form of intellectual snobbery). So, on suggesting an analogous reproductive mechanism (black holes) he shouldn't really find himself stepping on anyone's toes -- so far it's all just perfectly valid speculation.

But now he has a test - a test which Silk attempts to perform by showing how sub-optimal this universe is at creating black holes. For anyone reading this who hasn't yet caught on to the significance of this test, within Smolin's theory, in any ensemble of universes there is a very high probability of finding yourself in a universe having physical constants optimized for the production of black holes - as these will be the most prolific breeders. This is not to say that being in a sub-optimal universe disproves the theory, but rather, if it transpires that adjusting the constants either side of their current "settings" sees a decrease in the production of black holes then we would have a very hard time ignoring the fact that there was something about the design of the universe that favoured the production of black holes.

Now this is what I mean by "playing the game": If I am to be satisfied by any theory I want to see some form of validation that allows me to make a judgment. In the example I have given above it would still be debatable whether the reason that the physical constants were optimal for black hole production was that black holes spawned other universes -- but the only other possibilities; pure coincidence (a chance of 1 in 10 to the power 140 or thereabouts) or that black-hole eating monsters have created the universe as a farm, are too preposterous. Sure this is a philosophical judgment, but its the sort of philosophy that I think is worthwhile subscribing to.

Smolin takes the biological concept of natural selection, which we will evaluate from a philosophy of science and philosophy of biology perspective, and applies it universally, even uncritically, to the domain (physics and the inanimate universe), a move which itself is highly suspect in light of recent discoveries in developmental biology. This is poor science; in fact, it is a form of scientism, even pseudoscience; i.e., speculative metaphysics being passed off as scientific theory. It makes for good entertainment and popular science, but it doesn't make for lasting contributions to the furtherance of our understanding. And the evidence, I believe will show this, and that is very relevant to the core question of this thread contrary to QED's claim,

What you seem to be saying is that there is some reason why evolution has to be off limits to certain theoretical applications. I find this quite remarkable because the theory of evolution by natural selection describes a general principle which can be applied to any system built around a "less than perfect" self replicating engine constrained by selection pressures. Indeed having once programmed a very successful computer graphics application which provided its user with synthetic, but convincing looking, textures (cloud, wood marble etc.) there is no doubt in my mind that evolution is a general principle with universal application.

It is ironic that you claim I am assuming "all such applications of natural selection to be, a priori, a 'misplaced heuristic'", when in fact the evidence will show the exact opposite; those such as Smolin assume "a priori" that natural selection appropriately can be applied to any and all levels and domains, including the entire universe. As Gould's own words will show, and as a close examination of the philosophy of biology and developmental biology will show, this is a mistaken "a priori" assumption and extrapolation from one level (where it is appropriate) to another level where it is questionable (even being questioned by scientists) whether such an extrapolation is warranted.

The Boeing Co.'s 777 airliner has a General Electric engine whose turbine geometry evolved inside a computer, and the company is experimenting with evolving wings for future airliners. Eli Lilly and other pharmaceutical companies use "directed evolution" to find new protein catalysts to help produce drugs faster; Deere & Co. breeds daily schedules that direct assembly lines in six factories to fill custom orders for its millions of variants of agricultural machinery. The government contracted with Natural Selection Inc. of La Jolla, Calif., to use evolutionary programming in computers that will read mammograms more quickly and inexpensively than a radiologist.

So tell me -- which part of a system built around a "less than perfect" self replicating engine subject to selection pressures is not viable outside of biology?