1 / 43

A Philosophical Approach to the Selfish Biocosm Hypothesis

A Philosophical Approach to the Selfish Biocosm Hypothesis. Research project within ECCO. Clément Vidal Université Paris 1-Sorbonne ENS Ulm / EHESS / Paris V / Paris VI / ENS Cachan. (2004-2005). The most incomprehensible fact about the universe is that it is comprehensible. Albert Einstein.

oleg
Download Presentation

A Philosophical Approach to the Selfish Biocosm Hypothesis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Philosophical Approach to the Selfish Biocosm Hypothesis Research project within ECCO. Clément Vidal Université Paris 1-SorbonneENS Ulm / EHESS / Paris V / Paris VI / ENS Cachan. (2004-2005)

  2. The most incomprehensible fact about the universe is that it is comprehensible. Albert Einstein.

  3. Outline • 2.1 Preliminaries (General philosophical considerations) • 2.2 Introduction (Philosophical questions) • 2.3 Foundations (The anthropic principle; Smolin’s theory) • 2.4 The idea (The Selfish Biocosm Hypothesis) • 2.5 The need to go further (Avenues of research) • 2.6 Conclusion

  4. Outline • 2.1 Preliminaries. • Philosophy today • A rough sketch for a « scientific » approach to philosophy • 2.2 Introduction • 2.3 Foundations • 2.4 The idea • 2.5 The need to go further • 2.6 Conclusion

  5. Philosophy today Two main trends in today's philosophy : • phenomenology • analytic philosophy For neither of them is evolution important. A philosophy of evolution -of the cosmos and of life- is needed, for these discoveries are from the point of view of philosophy very recent. There is no such philosophy today (except the PCP ...)

  6. A rough sketch for a « scientific » approach to philosophy • Science and philosophy have a common goal : which is to understand the world. • Philosophy should use at least the less controversials scientific theories to build philosophical systems. (e.g. The fact of evolution; time and space are linked, etc...) • Philosophy is interested in questions that science can't answer. Philosophical claims based on scientific theories, and scientific theories -usually- based on facts.

  7. Philosophy Theory Theory … …

  8. « Scientific » philosophy  (2) • A philosophical claim would then be explicitly linked more or less closely to facts, through scientific theories. The further we are from fact, the more cautious we need to be. • Benefits • Such a philosophy could be revised as science progress. If a scientific theory is refuted, it would be clear that philosophical consequences would have to be taken into account. • This would limitate purely intellectual philosophical constructions; and would keep philosophical theories up to date with respect to scientific theories. • Concretly, a criterion for a good systematic philosophy would be a philosophy having links to the whole scientific knowledge.

  9. Outline • 2.1 Preliminaries • 2.2 Introduction • Deep philosophical questions • The need of speculation • What is the end of the universe ? • 2.3 Foundations • 2.4 The idea • 2.5 The need to go further • 2.6 Conclusion

  10. Deep philosophical questions We are going to reflect on the largest time and space scales. • Deep metaphysical questions. • Why is the universe bio-friendly ? • What is the meaning of life and intelligence in the universe ? • What are the beginning and the end of the universe ? • We all want answers to such questions, even if they aren't complete and definitive. It is even a natural need to have a complete and consistant world view. • As (Kant 1781)had understood, the metaphysic « science » would remain, « even if all the others [sciences] would be engulfed together in the gulf of a barbary that would destroy everything ». [B XIV]

  11. The need of speculation • Trying to answer such general, profound and difficult questions, we need to go through speculation. This book is intentionally and forthrightly speculative. Following the example of Darwin, I have attempted to crudely frame a revolutionary explanatory paradigm well before all of the requiered building materials and construction tools are at hand. (Gardner 2003, XXV) • Indeed, speculation helps: • to build new paradigms • to fight against scepticism (Gardner 2003, pXXVI)

  12. What is the end of the universe ? • What are the possibilities for life toward the end of the universe ? • The long-term future of life seems compromised. (Krauss & Starkman 1999). • The universe will end either in : • « ice » (Barrow 2001, p297-298) • or in « fire » (Big crunch). See also (Demaret et al. 1994, chap 11). • What follows is a -critical- presentation of Gardner's (2003) main argumentation.

  13. Outline • 2.1 Preliminaries • 2.2 Introduction • 2.3 Foundations • A life-friendly cosmos (Chapter 2) • The anthropic principle(s) (Part 1). • Lee Smolin’s reproducing universe (Chapter 6). • von Neumann’s self-reproducing automaton • Applied to Smolin's theory • 2.4 The idea • 2.5 The need to go further • 2.6 Conclusion

  14. A life-friendly cosmos. (Chapter 2) • Stars provide the lightest elements -necessary for life. (Smolin 1997, p32) What is the probability that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters of physics will contain stars ? • One chance in 10229 Smolin (1997, p55). • Ratio of electrical force to the gravitational force; force binding protons and neutrons; rate of cosmic expansion; Just three spatial dimensions; etc… See (Rees 2000) • Conclusion: the statistical improbability of a universe possessing all the life-friendly characteristics exhibited by our cosmos is simply too great to exclude the possibility of a nonrandom origin. (Gardner 2003, p10)

  15. The anthropic principle(s) (Part 1). Why is the universe bio-friendly ? • The weak anthropic principle (WAP): Since human observers inhabit this particular universe, it must perforce be life-friendly or it would not contain any observers resembling ourselves. (Gardner 2003, p288) • The strong anthropic principle (SAP): The origin of life and intelligence in the universe will eventually be shown to be strongly favored or even predestined by the laws and constants of inanimate nature. (Gardner 2003, p287).

  16. What is the WAP ? • The WAP is no science. Why not ? It contains a circularity. • Why is the universe life-friendly ? • Because we exist. • Why do we exist ? • Because the universe is life-friendly ! • The WAP is a teleological principle. • Its starts from the existence of intelligent beings and tries to deduce some aspects of the fundamental laws of nature. • It's rather a profound and useful question, the « anthropic question ». The anthropic question can thus be reformulated (Smolin 1999, p3) :Why do the parameters of the standard models of particle physics and cosmology fall in a very tiny box in the space of parameters in which there are stars and organic chemistry ?

  17. What is the SAP ? • Like the WAP, it is a teleological principle. • Usually, finality is rejected by science because : • Science refuses an explanation with finality • Finality implies a transcendantal intention (and thus theology). • But …because it is stronger, it is more subject to science (test the robustess of the emergence of intelligence). • See also (Gardner 2003, chap1) for an historic of the anthropic principle.

  18. Lee Smolin reproducing universe (Chapter 6). If the laws of physics are timeless, if they are true everywhere and for all time, any explanation of them must lie in something that is not in the universe  (Smolin 1997, p260). The situation of nowadays cosmology is analogous to the biologists‘ before Lamarck and Darwin.

  19. Lee Smolin reproducing universe (Chapter 6). If the laws of physics are timeless, if they are true everywhere and for all time, any explanation of them must lie in something that is not in the universe  (Smolin 1997, p260). The situation of nowadays cosmology is analogous to the biologists‘ before Lamarck and Darwin.

  20. Lee Smolin reproducing universe (Chapter 6). If the laws of physics are timeless, if they are true everywhere and for all time, any explanation of them must lie in something that is not in the universe  (Smolin 1997, p260). The situation of nowadays cosmology is analogous to the biologists‘ before Lamarck and Darwin.

  21. Smolin’s theory • NOT multiverse • Black holes give birth to new universes (space-time regions.) • This event is like a big bang, and can give rise to new physical laws. • The properties of the elementary particules are slightly different from the mother universe.

  22. Limitations of Smolin’s theory • Life’s role in the universe is incidental. • The physical laws aren’t fine-tuned to maximize black hole production. (Rees 1997, p251), quoted in (Gardner 2003, p84) • No mechanism of heredity. (Gardner 2003, p84)

  23. von Neumann’s self-reproducing automaton

  24. Applied to Smolin's theory

  25. Outline • 2.1 Preliminaries • 2.2 Introduction • 2.3 Foundations • 2.4 The idea • The Selfish Biocosm Hypothesis (SBH) (Part 4). • Tests proposed by Gardner • Problems with the tests • Why a pure scientific will dislike the idea ? • 2.5 The need to go further • 2.6 Conclusion

  26. The Selfish Biocosm Hypothesis (SBH) (Part 4). Could, in fact, the origin and evolution of life and the emergence of intelligence in an inanimate universe be at the very heart of the mysterious process of cosmological ontogeny and replication hypothesized by Professor Smolin ? (Gardner 2003, p86) • Note that the idea is 10 years old, and came from (Edward Harrison 1995)

  27. SBH (2) the anthropic qualities that our universe exhibits can be explained as incidental consequences of an enormously lenghtly cosmic replication cycle in which a cosmologically extended biosphere provides the means by which our cosmos duplicates itself and propagates one or more « baby universes ».  (Gardner 2003, XXIV-XXV) • Why selfish ? • The name came in analogy with (Dawkins 1989) selfish gene. Under my theory, the cosmos is « selfishly » focused upon the overarching objective of achieving its own replication. (Gardner 2003, pXXV)

  28. Completion of Smolin’s theory

  29. Why create a new universe ? • (Gardner 2003, p224) : altruism. • (Harrison 1995, p200) : • Prove the theory is correct, and the technology adequate • Make universes even more hospitable to intelligent life. • Inhabit the universe created (!) • In my opinion : • The end of our universe not happy. (See intro, slide 12) • To achieve the immortality of the cosmos. (aspiration to infinite, immortality).

  30. Tests proposed by Gardner • Four tests are described p135-136 of the book. • The SETI project will eventually succeed. • Convergent animal evolution toward sentience in nonprimate species. (ex: Dolphins). • Artificial life evolution. (Create a « conscious artifact.») • Emergence of transhuman intelligence (necessary condition to the task of cosmological engineering). • A plausible scenario exists by which the cosmos will evolve toward a state of maximal computational capacity. (Gardner 2001); (Gardner 2003, chap 12).

  31. Problems with the tests • A domain of science is scientific when it is expressible in terms of laws, and refutable by experience. (Popper 1959) • The tests are too far from the SBH. • SETI. If SETI fails for ever, this won’t falsify the SBH. If we are alone, we can hold that we will manage to create a new universe. • Animal evolution toward sentience. It would necessitate geological times to test the evolution of species. • Artificial life evolution. How long will it take to have a conscious artifact ? • Emergence of transhuman intelligence. If it fails on earth, we may suppose that an other intelligent civilization may accomplish the duplication process. So, if it fails, SBH wouldn’t be falsified. • The SBH laws are on a too large scale to be object of any experience. We can only argue for or against with arguments (that can be scientific). • What would be real refutations of the SBH ? • A proof that the universe was not created by intelligent beeings. • A proof that any intelligent life in our universe will never create a baby universe.

  32. Why a pure scientific will dislike the idea ? • Normally, a scientific asks a question to nature, and expect a response. The response usually only depends on nature. (notable exceptions in quantum mechanics, and in self-fulfilling economic theories). • Accepting the SBH has consequences about the meaning of intelligent beings, and scientific activity in particular. Under SBH, scientific activity doesn't mean only pure love of discovery and objectivity. The scientific activity tries to build the most correct model of the universe, in order to (maybe one day) create a new universe.

  33. Outline • 2.1 Preliminaries • 2.2 Introduction • 2.3 Foundations • 2.4 The idea • 2.5 The need to go further • What is the epistemological status of the SBH ? • What are the scientific arguments for and against this theory? • How to Integrate the idea in an evolutionary, and systemic philosophy ? • Biocosm and humanity (Part 6). • 2.6 Conclusion

  34. What is the epistemological status of the SBH ? • Gardner pretends that his theory is scientific, because falsifiable « tests » do exist. But as we saw, these tests do not properly test the SBH. • It is necessarily philosophic. We are involved in the cosmos. The realisation of SBH -without E.T.- depends on us. This only fact makes the status of the SBH philosophical. (That doesn't mean that we don't need scientific arguments to argue for a philosophical world view...) It is impossible to calculate in detail the long-range future of the universe without including the effects of life and intelligence. It is impossible to calculate the capabilitites of life and intelligence without touching, at least peripherally, philosophical questions. If we are to examine how intelligent life may be able to guide the physical development of the universe for its own purposes, we cannot altogether avoid considering what the values and purposes of intelligent life may be. (Dyson 1988, p99-100), quoted in (Gardner 2003, p111)

  35. What are the scientific arguments for and against this theory ? • For example, test the robustness of the emergence of intelligence. • Gardner’s 4 tests • At first sight, the SBH seems consitant with Stewart's (1997, 2000) arrow of evolution.

  36. How to integrate the idea in an evolutionary-systemic philosophy ? • What are the possible links with an evolutionnary-systemic philosophy like the Principia Cybernetica Project ?

  37. Biocosm and humanity (Part 6). These issues are just touched on by Gardner. • Global Brain and « superintelligence » (that's why we need [1]...) • Possibility to develop a world view based on the SBH. • This would provide a clear very long term goal. • The view would thus be larger -in space and time scales- than the Global Brain utopia (Heylighen 2004) though fully consistant with it.

  38. 2.6 Conclusion (1) • The SBH : • reminds us that we are involved in the cosmos • propose that the universe, life, and intelligence are intrinsically linked. • Gardner's idea is: • philosophically excellent (satisfying the criteria of a « scientific » philosophy) • scientifically weak (difficult to test).

  39. 2.6 Conclusion (2) • In constrast to the « selfish » biocosm, if this theory has to become an utopia, I suggest a more poetic view. • Excerpt of Plato’s Symposium : Diotime - For love, Socrates, is not, as you imagine, the love of the beautiful only. Socrates - What then? Diotime - The love of generation and of birth in beauty. Socrates - 'Yes,' I said. Diotime -Yes, indeed. But why of generation? Because to the mortal creature, generation is a sort of eternity and immortality, and if, as has been already admitted, love is of the everlasting possession of the good, all men will necessarily desire immortality together with good: Wherefore love is of immortality. • If the story of the universe were a kind of unending love story between life and universes ? ...

  40. Thank you for your attention ! Questions are very welcome now or later clement.vidal@philosophons.com

  41. Bibliography (1) • 2. Second project. • Barrow, J. D. (2001) The book of nothing. New York: Pantheon. • Dawkins, R. (1989) – Le gène égoïste. Odile Jacob, deuxième édition, 1989. • Demaret, Lambert (1994) Le principe anthropique. Armand Colin. • Dyson, F. (1988) Infinite in all directions. New York: Harper Perennial Library. • Gardner, J. N., (2000) The Selfish Biocosm: Complexity as Cosmology. Complexity 5, no. 3. Gardner, J. N. (2001) Assessing the Robustness of the Emergence of Intelligence: Testing the Selfish Biocosm Hypothesis. Acta Astronautica 48, no. 5-12, p951-955. Abstract : http://www.setileague.org/iaaseti/abst2000/gardner.pdf Gardner, J. N., (2003)  Biocosm. The new scientific theory of evolution: intelligent life is the architect of the universe. Inner Ocean Publishing. See www.biocosm.org where the introduction is available. • Harrison, E. (1995) The natural selection of universes containing intelligent life. Quart. J. Roy. Astronom. Soc., 36, 193-203.http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=1995QJRAS..36..193H&link_type=ARTICLE&db_key=AST • Heylighen, F. (2000) Foundations and Methodology for an Evolutionary World View: a review of the Principia Cybernetica Project, Foundations of Science, 5, p. 457-490. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/PCPworldview-FOS.pdf Heylighen F. (2004): "Das Globale Gehirn als neue Utopia" (The Global Brain as a new Utopia), in: R. Maresch & F. Rötzer (eds.) Renaissance der Utopie (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt) http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/GB-Utopia.pdf

  42. Bibliography (2) • Kant, E. (1781), Critique of the pure reason. Trad. Norman Kemp Smith, ed. Palgrave Macmillan; 2nd Rev edition (September 6, 2003). • Krauss, L. M. And Starkman, G. D., (1999) Life, the Universe and Nothing: Life and Death in an Ever-Expanding Universe. Astro-ph/9902189. • Plato, (-360) Symposium.http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/symposium.html • Popper, K. R., (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson, London. • Rees, M., (1997) Before the beginning: Our Universe and Others (Reading, MA: Addison Wesley). Rees, M., (2000) Just six numbers: the deep forces that shape the universe. New York: Basic Books. • Smolin, L. (1997) The life of the cosmos. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Smolin, L. (1999) How are the Parameters of Nature Selected? 26 april 1999 Talk. ITP & Penn State.http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/bblunch/smolin/ • Stewart, J. E. (1997b), Evolutionary progress, Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 20, pp. 335-62. http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/jes999/evpro.htmStewart, J. E. (2000), Evolution's Arrow (Rivett: Chapman Press). http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/jes999/ • von Neumann, J. (1948) The general and logical theory of automata, IN : Cerebral mechanisms in behavior : the Hixon symposium / Lloyd A. Jeffress. Reprint in John von Neumann, Collected Works, ed. A. H. Taub.http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/vonneumann1951.pdf

  43. Our universe has been created … and ? • Assuming SBH is -in part- assuming that our universe has been created by intelligent life. • With the universe created by an external entity (God or intelligent beings), when we ask the question : « why is this phenomenon so and not otherwise ? » we may be tempted to answer « because the creator wanted this », and thus stop searching for a better explanation (ex: vitalism, species categories). • That’s why God isn’t a good scientific hypothesis. • The case of SBH is different. As the cosmos should reproduce, we (intelligent life) should continue to decipher its slightest secrets.

More Related