Difference between revisions of "Selfish biocosm hypothesis"
JohnMSmart (talk | contribs) (→Intelligent life as the architect of the universe) |
JohnMSmart (talk | contribs) |
||
| (33 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The '''selfish biocosm hypothesis''' is an evolutionary and developmental universe hypothesis proposed by complexity scholar [ | + | The '''selfish biocosm hypothesis''' is an evolutionary and developmental universe hypothesis originally named and proposed by complexity scholar [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_N._Gardner James N. Gardner] in 2000. |
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| − | |||
==Intelligent life as the architect of the universe== | ==Intelligent life as the architect of the universe== | ||
| − | In | + | In 1995, the cosmologist [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Robert_Harrison Edward Robert Harrison] published possibly the first scientific paper on the idea that our universe was created, or more accurately, non-randomly improved, by intelligent life in a prior physical universe, providing a causal reason for the emergence of intelligence within self-replicating universes. In "The Natural Selection of Universes Containing Intelligent Life," in ''Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society'', Vol. 36, NO. 3/SEP, P. 193, 1995 ([https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995QJRAS..36..193H PDF]), Harrison proposed that the prior physical universe was also one "in which the constants of physics were finely tuned and therefore essentially similar to our own." He proposed that end-of universe intelligence would be able to induce further variations in physical constants, and use their intelligence and future simulation capacity to presumably produce more more adaptive subsequent universes. |
| − | |||
| − | + | In articles beginning in 2000, and in the books ''Biocosm'' (2003) and ''The Intelligent Universe'' (2007) complexity scholar [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_N._Gardner James N. Gardner] further developed the hypothesis that there is a cycle of cosmic creation in which highly evolved intelligences with a superior command of physics spawn baby universes engineered to be able to give birth to new, intelligent life. In this hypothesis the ability of our present universe to support intelligent life as well as it does is not an accident, but the result of a succession of increasingly "bio-friendly" universes emerging within the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse multiverse], in a process of both (evolutionary) intelligence-guided experiment and engineered (developmental) design. Harrison is quoted well in Gardner's books, and he builds on his earlier insights to further develop and name the hypothesis. | |
| − | Gardner | + | Like a few other scholars, such as [http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~afriedman/ Andrew S. Friedman] (2002), Gardner compares the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_constants fundamental constants] (and perhaps laws) of nature to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA DNA] in living organisms, and he speculates that life and intelligence must statistically emerge in universes with our constants. |
| + | ==Intelligence as an explanation of the anthropic universe== | ||
| + | Gardner's hypothesis was motivated by an attempt to provide a naturalistic explanation for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe fine-tuning problem], our apparently anthropic universe. He argues that the (developmental) destiny of highly evolved intelligence (perhaps our distant progeny, should our civilization persist) is to infuse the entire universe with life, and eventually engage in cosmic reproduction by spawning one or more new universes, which will themselves be endowed with life-generating properties. He further argues that values of existing constants constitute a 'biosignature,' a message which will be increasingly readable as being intelligently influenced as science advances. | ||
| − | Gardner | + | While not always clear in his discussion of this point, Gardner's hypothesis remains fully naturalistic as he does not posit that these universe-creating intelligences are omniscient, omnipotent, or possess supernatural capacities. Thus the SBH is within the [http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/index.php/Research_themes research themes] of the EDU community, which exclude such topics as non-naturalistic orthogenesis or teleology, intelligent design, supernaturalism, and theology. |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | ==Philosophical implications== | |
| + | Like a number of antecedents, such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Murchie Guy Murchie] (1978) and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson Freeman Dyson] (1985), Gardner sees the evolutionary development of life on Earth as a part of a universal struggle of order against entropy. He proposes that our local contribution to developing intelligence and life influences future lives and intelligent entities throughout time and that intelligence applied collectively throughout the cosmos largely determines its structure and dynamics. He proposes the SBH provides a foundation for a new set of [http://www.biocosm.org/ideas.htm ethical imperatives] that are more cosmically-aware, sustainable, and foresighted than those commonly held today. | ||
| − | + | ==See also== | |
| − | |||
| − | + | *[[Cosmological natural selection (fecund universes)]] | |
| − | + | *[[Meduso-anthropic principle]] | |
==References== | ==References== | ||
| + | * Dyson, F. (1985/2004) [http://www.amazon.com/Infinite-All-Directions-Lectures-April-November/dp/0060728892/ ''Infinite in All Directions'' (Amazon)], Harper Perennial. ISBN 0060728892 | ||
| + | * Friedman, A. (2002) Fundamental Constants of Physics: The Genes of the Universe, Guest Lecture at the Summer Science Program, Ojai, CA, 2002. | ||
* Gardner, James N. (2000) The selfish biocosm: Compexity as cosmology. ''Complexity'' 5(3):34-45. | * Gardner, James N. (2000) The selfish biocosm: Compexity as cosmology. ''Complexity'' 5(3):34-45. | ||
* Gardner, James N. (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Biocosm-Scientific-Evolution-Intelligent-Architect/dp/1930722222/ ''Biocosm: The New Scientific Theory of Evolution'' (Amazon)], Inner Ocean Pub. ISBN 1930722222 | * Gardner, James N. (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Biocosm-Scientific-Evolution-Intelligent-Architect/dp/1930722222/ ''Biocosm: The New Scientific Theory of Evolution'' (Amazon)], Inner Ocean Pub. ISBN 1930722222 | ||
| − | |||
* Gardner, James N. (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Universe-Emerging-Mind-Cosmos/dp/1564149196/ ''The Intelligent Universe: AI, ET, and the Emerging Mind of the Cosmos'' (Amazon)], New Page. ISBN 1564149196 | * Gardner, James N. (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Universe-Emerging-Mind-Cosmos/dp/1564149196/ ''The Intelligent Universe: AI, ET, and the Emerging Mind of the Cosmos'' (Amazon)], New Page. ISBN 1564149196 | ||
| + | * Murchie, G. (1978/1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Mysteries-Life-Guy-Murchie/dp/0395957915/ ''The Seven Mysteries of Life'' (Amazon)], Mariner Books. ISBN 0395957915 | ||
Latest revision as of 20:16, 1 April 2025
The selfish biocosm hypothesis is an evolutionary and developmental universe hypothesis originally named and proposed by complexity scholar James N. Gardner in 2000.
Contents
Intelligent life as the architect of the universe
In 1995, the cosmologist Edward Robert Harrison published possibly the first scientific paper on the idea that our universe was created, or more accurately, non-randomly improved, by intelligent life in a prior physical universe, providing a causal reason for the emergence of intelligence within self-replicating universes. In "The Natural Selection of Universes Containing Intelligent Life," in Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 36, NO. 3/SEP, P. 193, 1995 (PDF), Harrison proposed that the prior physical universe was also one "in which the constants of physics were finely tuned and therefore essentially similar to our own." He proposed that end-of universe intelligence would be able to induce further variations in physical constants, and use their intelligence and future simulation capacity to presumably produce more more adaptive subsequent universes.
In articles beginning in 2000, and in the books Biocosm (2003) and The Intelligent Universe (2007) complexity scholar James N. Gardner further developed the hypothesis that there is a cycle of cosmic creation in which highly evolved intelligences with a superior command of physics spawn baby universes engineered to be able to give birth to new, intelligent life. In this hypothesis the ability of our present universe to support intelligent life as well as it does is not an accident, but the result of a succession of increasingly "bio-friendly" universes emerging within the multiverse, in a process of both (evolutionary) intelligence-guided experiment and engineered (developmental) design. Harrison is quoted well in Gardner's books, and he builds on his earlier insights to further develop and name the hypothesis.
Like a few other scholars, such as Andrew S. Friedman (2002), Gardner compares the fundamental constants (and perhaps laws) of nature to DNA in living organisms, and he speculates that life and intelligence must statistically emerge in universes with our constants.
Intelligence as an explanation of the anthropic universe
Gardner's hypothesis was motivated by an attempt to provide a naturalistic explanation for the fine-tuning problem, our apparently anthropic universe. He argues that the (developmental) destiny of highly evolved intelligence (perhaps our distant progeny, should our civilization persist) is to infuse the entire universe with life, and eventually engage in cosmic reproduction by spawning one or more new universes, which will themselves be endowed with life-generating properties. He further argues that values of existing constants constitute a 'biosignature,' a message which will be increasingly readable as being intelligently influenced as science advances.
While not always clear in his discussion of this point, Gardner's hypothesis remains fully naturalistic as he does not posit that these universe-creating intelligences are omniscient, omnipotent, or possess supernatural capacities. Thus the SBH is within the research themes of the EDU community, which exclude such topics as non-naturalistic orthogenesis or teleology, intelligent design, supernaturalism, and theology.
Philosophical implications
Like a number of antecedents, such as Guy Murchie (1978) and Freeman Dyson (1985), Gardner sees the evolutionary development of life on Earth as a part of a universal struggle of order against entropy. He proposes that our local contribution to developing intelligence and life influences future lives and intelligent entities throughout time and that intelligence applied collectively throughout the cosmos largely determines its structure and dynamics. He proposes the SBH provides a foundation for a new set of ethical imperatives that are more cosmically-aware, sustainable, and foresighted than those commonly held today.
See also
References
- Dyson, F. (1985/2004) Infinite in All Directions (Amazon), Harper Perennial. ISBN 0060728892
- Friedman, A. (2002) Fundamental Constants of Physics: The Genes of the Universe, Guest Lecture at the Summer Science Program, Ojai, CA, 2002.
- Gardner, James N. (2000) The selfish biocosm: Compexity as cosmology. Complexity 5(3):34-45.
- Gardner, James N. (2003) Biocosm: The New Scientific Theory of Evolution (Amazon), Inner Ocean Pub. ISBN 1930722222
- Gardner, James N. (2007) The Intelligent Universe: AI, ET, and the Emerging Mind of the Cosmos (Amazon), New Page. ISBN 1564149196
- Murchie, G. (1978/1999) The Seven Mysteries of Life (Amazon), Mariner Books. ISBN 0395957915
