Metaphysics of Evolution

[JadussD]

Evolution. Is there any concept more overrated?

Right. Let's start over.

EVOLUTION causes those forms to exist which are dependent for their growth on AVOIDING death. Evolution will never give birth to anything but that which AVOIDS DEATH or is consumed by it. Let us contemplate this way of being...

Oh! That means that your entire make-up is a struggle against death.

So we arrive at complexity in the context of avoiding death. Could it be, that this is simply growth in the context of enslavement to death? There could be other ways to grow, but enslavement to death is the essence of evolution.

Think hard: is this the only way to grow?

 

[Isildur]

Slight correction: avoiding death long enough to reproduce, and if necessary, rear the young. Reproduction is the driving force, not longevity, because whatever precautions are taken against death, the individual is going to get offed by something or another, sooner or later.

 

[Fla Flash]

Slight correction: avoiding death long enough to reproduce, and if necessary, rear the young. Reproduction is the driving force, not longevity, because whatever precautions are taken against death, the individual is going to get offed by something or another, sooner or later.

Sounds kind of like Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park.
"Nature will find a way."

 

[Cornellius]

Living things in this world will always be searching of a way to avoid death, to be immortal. Always.

 

[Reaper man]

...to be immortal. Always.

something about immortality irks me. Wouldn't you, after a certain amount of time,get, well, bored of life. I mean if I lived for a millennium or 2 I think that at some point, I would have seen all there is for the world to see and it would get to the point where I would just wish death.

Same goes with the concept of heaven. After a finite amount of time, I'm fairly certain you could get rather bored of heaven as well.

 

[SpaceTiger]

So we arrive at complexity in the context of avoiding death. Could it be, that this is simply growth in the context of enslavement to death?

Think hard: is this the only way to grow?

My first instinct is to say no, simply because human design (e.g. technology) grows without regard to death. However, if we generalize "death" to mean "error" or any sort impediment to growth, then technological advancement could be viewed as a similar process to evolution. Any collection of knowledge is the result of a complex history of trial and error, either in the mind of a single individual or the minds of many.

One possible alternative is growth by sheer randomness. Death (or error) need not be involved if complexity just happens by chance. This may seem so improbable as to be negligible, but it's possible that our universe is an example of just such a process -- the random anomaly in an otherwise lifeless multiverse.

 

[JadussD]

My first instinct is to say no, simply because human design (e.g.x technology) grows without regard to death. However, if we generalize "death" to mean "error" or any sort impediment to growth, then technological advancement could be viewed as a similar process to evolution. Any collection of knowledge is the result of a complex history of trial and error, either in the mind of a single individual or the minds of many.

One possible alternative is growth by sheer randomness. Death (or error) need not be involved if complexity just happens by chance. This may seem so improbable as to be negligible, but it's possible that our universe is an example of just such a process -- the random anomaly in an otherwise lifeless multiverse.

Consider for a moment that life could be described as being made up of a few self-reproducing patterns. Basically, there are patterns in the universe (helix, golden mean, pi, etc). These patterns exist because they are the patterns that when they arise, allow continued growth to occur in a way that resists entropy.

Consider that if there was a multiverse that parts could be measured qualitatively based on whether conditions allow these patterns to exist in greater or lesser amounts. If entropy is resisted by technology, then the patterns which allow growth must be made present through some other means, or things will decay.

 

[JadussD]

Consider for a moment that life could be described as being made up of a few self-reproducing patterns. Basically, there are patterns in the universe (helix, golden mean, pi, etc). These patterns exist because they are the patterns that when they arise, allow continued growth to occur in a way that resists entropy.

Consider that if there was a multiverse that parts could be measured qualitatively based on whether conditions allow these patterns to exist in greater or lesser amounts. If entropy is resisted by technology, then the patterns which allow growth must be made present through some other means, or things will decay.

Consider how beauty used to be applied to the golden mean. By surrounding humans with architecture and patterns which conform to the patterns of life, one makes them more present in the subconscious and conscious minds of all, thus increasing their presence in the world. This is lost on way too many people making way too many things

 

[SpaceTiger]

Consider that if there was a multiverse that parts could be measured qualitatively based on whether conditions allow these patterns to exist in greater or lesser amounts. If entropy is resisted by technology, then the patterns which allow growth must be made present through some other means, or things will decay.

The trouble with a model like this is that it's very hard to see how the factors that lead to our own growth have any bearing on whether or not the universe grows or reproduces itself. One can imagine a somewhat far-fetched scenario in which universes are selected based on ability to produce intelligent life because that life is eventually able to make new universes. This wouldn't explain, however, how the universe came to be able to support life to begin with.

That said, however, there do exist evolutionary models for the universe, but they involve a propensity for producing black holes. Basically, the idea is that the creation of a black hole leads to the creation of a new universe (some fraction of the time), so the universes that survive will be those that can most efficiently produce black holes. It's all speculative, since we have no idea whether or not production of a black hole leads to production of a new universe, but it's an interesting idea.

 

[JadussD]

The trouble with a model like this is that it's very hard to see how the factors that lead to our own growth have any bearing on whether or not the universe grows or reproduces itself. One can imagine a somewhat far-fetched scenario in which universes are selected based on ability to produce intelligent life because that life is eventually able to make new universes. This wouldn't explain, however, how the universe came to be able to support life to begin with.

That said, however, there do exist evolutionary models for the universe, but they involve a propensity for producing black holes. Basically, the idea is that the creation of black hole leads to the creation of new universe (some fraction of the time), so the universes that survive will be those that can most efficiently produce black holes. It's all speculative, since we have no idea whether or not production of a black hole leads to production of a new universe, but it's an interesting idea.

For some time I've considered a black hole to be something like a universal anus. Just as creatures on planets have ani (can we just say "anuses"?), so do galaxies. A bunch of smaller anuses, and in the center of some, one big anus.

It is interesting that the spiral galaxies have one big anus in the center. Perhaps the spherical model is more merciful than the spiral model? (But perhaps lacking complexity?)

As for giving birth to future universes: just look at all the games we make. Look at all the new worlds being born, tending to more complexity. Now, imagine if in the future we figure out how to transfer consciousness from a human body into a game world? Yikes, we'd be creating new universes.

 

[jdev]

something about immortality irks me. Wouldn't you, after a certain amount of time,get, well, bored of life. I mean if I lived for a millennium or 2 I think that at some point, I would have seen all there is for the world to see and it would get to the point where I would just wish death.

Same goes with the concept of heaven. After a finite amount of time, I'm fairly certain you could get rather bored of heaven as well.

I suppose "the grass is always greener" applies.

 

[Shadow]

I suppose "the credit card must be valid" applies... since it is the final step of human evolution. It took billions of years to develop a system where men can be exploited in perfection by women buying useless stuff with the money of their husbands. So what? Is THIS the end of the story?

I doubt this was the intention of creating this world and evolution stuff. But I don't know where this all will lead in the future.

Let's think about immortality... We men will become poorer and poorer. It wouldn't be boring! We would have to work day and night for the shopping escapades of the ones we love, the ones who really know how to hurt us best. I think women are the masterpiece of evolution. They found the perfect ways to enslave men for their desires. They are more efficient, more intelligent, more beautiful etc. And all that just to conquer the world (or at least the most powerful positions).

Think about it! It's not the big deal with the universal anus thing...
Just imagine: isn't it obvious? All big leaders have a woman! These big leaders control empires and world powers. But behind them is always a strong woman!

But no folks. I don't intend to blame women. I love them. But I have to admit, that in my humble opinion we men are just No. 2. We can achieve great things and destroy even greater things, but women are just superior.

;-)

 

[toasterhed]

Here is my two cents. I think that the functions of the macrocosm and microcosm cannot be contained within any words in the human language.

Furthermore there are those of us whom simply embrace death as part of life and live for the sake of the fact that we are already here and living, so why not embrace all aspects of life? Maybe I'm not hitting the nail on the head but that's what came to mind for me.

What kind of existence would it be if all we did was worry about how to stay alive instead of enjoying life? But indeed many people are a slave to that very concept. How true... let us learn from that example if nothing else, and enjoy the zest of life. There will be plenty of time to worry about what comes next when your dead. And even if nothing happens, at least you had a good time!

To quote a nice translation (or perhaps even interpretation if you will) of a verse from the Tao Te Ching, it still retains it meaning and in fact is easier to understand than the original Chinese text:

Existence is beyond the power of words
To define:
Terms may be used
But are none of them absolute.
In the beginning of heaven and earth there were no words,
Words came out of the womb of matter;
And whether a man dispassionately
Sees to the core of life
Or passionately
Sees the surface,
The core and the surface
Are essentially the same,
Words making them seem different
Only to express appearance.
If name be needed, wonder names them both:
From wonder into wonder
Existence opens.

- Witter Bynner, 1944