Metaphysics of Evolution
 

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?

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."

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

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.

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

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.

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.