The scientific method is recognised as the primary knowledge generator of modern civilisation. Through the rigorous process of verification, applying both inductive and deductive logic, causal relationships governing physical phenomena are defined and tested in the form of models or hypotheses.
A new evolutionary twist can provide a deeper understanding the nature of the Scientific Method.
In fact it bears a striking similarity to the larger process of evolution itself and is a subset of that process. The difference is one of complexity and scope. Evolution is a universal generic process of adaptation and optimisation, which selects and amplifies the most appropriate response of a system to its environment. The scientific method is a meta-method or methodology aimed at selecting the most appropriate theory or causal model within an experimental environment.
But the two Tow believes are intimately connected. A greater understanding of the evolutionary nature of the scientific method will lead to an acceleration of the process of new theory discovery, which in turn will accelerate the broader process of evolutionary knowledge discovery.
The original conceptualisation of a hypothesis is often the result of pattern discovery based on intuition, creativity or serendipity. This initial hypothesis is then further experimentally tested and refined against sample data until its predictions can be accurately assessed in relation to real world phenomena and observations. If this matching process fails, the hypothesis will be discarded or radically reworked. If successful, it will continue to undergo verification, in relation to an ever-widening knowledge context.
Karl Popper proposed that all theories should be constantly tested and verified to see if a better theory can be achieved. This recognises that no hypothesis is a perfect formalisation or predictor of future reality. Popper's hypothesis therefore basically restates the evolutionary process.
There is no end to this process. All current major theories, even Relativity and the Standard Model of Quantum Physics, are constantly being optimised, refined and sometimes radically reinterpreted.
The knowledge and wisdom gained from trial and error processing for early hominids was initially passed on to future generations through behaviour mimicking, then by word of mouth after language developed and finally in the form of writing and symbol processing, which has continued through to the present time in a digital form.
At the same time a greater understanding of the cause and effect of natural phenomena emerged through the evolving knowledge structures of science, mathematics and logic. Finally the major scientific breakthroughs of the 17th Century, including Newton’s formulation of the laws of mechanics combined with the analytic machinery of calculus mathematics, provided insight into the underlying abstract mechanism at work- the scientific method. This was defined and applied by Newton, Bacon and others.
The key to better understanding the scientific method, is that it is not a single process but a number of sub-processes, which are continually evolving. These processes include- initial conceptual insights, general hypothesis formulation, experimental framework development, data access and capture, analysis of information and evidence extraction, hypothesis modelling based on inferencing logic, algorithmic formulation, experimentation, testing and validation of procedures, hypothesis optimisation and refinement.
Each of these sub-processes within the overall framework of the method is therefore evolving as scientific advances continue.
Over the centuries the tools for data capture, analysis and abstraction have also constantly evolved. For example, improved measurement tools and techniques have extended observational capabilities beyond the senses using the microscope, telescope, imaging equipment and mass spectrometry etc. Also advanced mathematical, statistical and graphical techniques are now routinely applied- amplified during the latter part of the 20th Century by the power of computer processing.
The scientific method was therefore not invented or discovered in its present form, but evolved and continues to evolve, using processes common to all adaptive learning.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Future Darwinism- Evolution Wins- Life's Best bet
A previous story in the Future Darwinism series outlined a radical new theory that postulates evolution at the quantum level ( Ref- Quantum Darwinism)
However future directions in Darwinism point to a Unified Theory, which extends beyond biology to encompass all processes. This hypothesis can only be credible if evolution applies at the very large as well as smallest physical scale.
Modern theories of the genesis and dynamics of the universe have been in play since Fred Hoyle’s Steady State hypothesis in the 40’s and Big Bang theory of the 60’s.
However from the 90’s radical cosmic evolutionary models have taken centre stage; and now in an exciting twist, evolution and information theory have been combined.
Although the Big Bang explains the expansionary nature of the universe, it is limited in its ability to explain why the initial conditions were so appropriate to our particular life processes. When trying to draw conclusions about the nature of the universe, it is essential to be aware of the self-selection process resulting from being Homo sapiens.
This is known as the Anthropic principle. Our evolution and that of the stars and planets before us, is predicated on the properties of matter and forces necessary to create the finely balanced existence of carbon-based observers, such as ourselves.
Theories of the cosmos based on the Anthropic theory suggest that the type of universe we perceive is only special because of these specific properties and relationships. There may well be zillions of other alternate universes, of which ours is representative of only a tiny fraction within a larger multi-universe.
From an evolutionary perspective, André Linde, a Russian physicist, was first off the mark with his model of the ‘self-reproducing or chaotic inflationary universe’, formulated in the early nineties. Earlier versions of the initial hyper-expansion of the universe were based on inflationary theories which postulated a highly specialised event, fine-tuned to very special conditions.
Linde's model suggested that inflation might be a much more generic process, based on the existence of underlying potential energy fields, which manifest in the form of a gigantic bubble or expansion of space. These would continue to spawn new bubble universes or creation events in a never-ending self-reproducing process.
This model dictates that the inflationary field is self-perpetuating, constantly triggering new universes with slightly different initial conditions, creating different laws of nature or relationships between matter and energy, depending on the strength of the field; in much the same way as a fractal pattern creates self-similar forms over and over again.
The solution, according to Linde's theory, is that sooner or later out of all the trillions of possibilities, a universe is generated with just the right mix of force and matter fields to allow the possibility of life as we know it to emerge.
No sooner had the ramifications of this revolutionary proposal settled into the psyche of the scientific community than the next major conceptual leap forward in cosmological models was proposed by leading physicist Lee Smolin.
Our own universe would seem to be far from typical, much larger than expected from a Big Bang event. Why did inflation, an ultra-rapid stretching of space-time, continue as long as it did; precisely long enough to allow stars, planets and humans to evolve? A shorter burst would have caused a proto-universe to collapse. A longer burst would have spread matter too thinly for stars to form. Smolin instead proposed a truly evolutionary explanation based on black hole creation.
Only in the 80s was it realised that gravitational forces could cause our universe to eventually collapse into a singularity or tiny incompressible seed in a mirror image of its creation. At the same time, John Wheeler conjectured that black holes might generate new regions of space-time or white holes, with new parameters and these would be the seeds of new universes. In other words, it was also realised that the laws of relativity would allow material falling into a black hole in our four-dimensional space-time universe to re-emerge in another space-time set of dimensions as another Big Bang event.
Each singularity according to this theory, has its own set of space-time dimensions forming a bubble universe within a larger dimensional space-time- a meta-universe.
At its most basic level, Smolin's theory describes a universe that has evolved to maximise production of black holes and hence the production of alternate universes. The parameters that maximise the production of black holes also maximise the potential for the production of life through the generation of carbon molecules.
According to Smolin's theory, our universe constantly gives birth to new universes. With the right initial conditions, these will produce black holes more effectively, leaving more off-spring than other universes. In other words, they will be selected in the biological Darwinian sense according to the rules of mutation, selection and replication.
The revolutionary idea that Smolin has introduced is that each baby universe is a slightly mutated form of its parent, with slightly altered physical parameters. If these changes allow a slightly larger degree of inflation, this may kick-start a larger universe that does not collapse as quickly and which will eventually have the capacity to create stars, planets, carbon, life and even larger and more fecund universes.
Smolin’s evolutionary natural selection theory is of course the cosmological equivalent of Darwin's biological theory.
In biology a system attempts to adapt to its environment in order to survive. This is the driving force behind the process of evolution. Therefore as an evolutionary system it should also apply to our universe.
By evolving the capability to generate life, the universe has created the capacity to move beyond the state of inanimate matter to that of a living sentient entity, such as Gaia on a larger scale.
This evolving, ‘becoming’ view also answers some age-old problems such as why are things the way they are. Why is the universe in a state that just happens to support life?
Before the self-organising cosmic evolutionary thesis was developed, circumstantial evidence suggested that the physical constants of the universe were randomly generated. As previously discussed, the standard Anthropic hypothesis says that we exist in just one of an infinite or very large number of universes, each with its own constants and laws of nature; a small proportion of which are conducive to the creation of life as we know it.
The second alternative, Intelligent Design, suggests a supernatural force or deity has specifically designed our universe according to its own blueprint. This hypothesis carries no supporting scientific evidence.
Now Smolin’s evolutionary theory, together with a new information foundation, offers a third way of explaining our existence.
This theory proposes that the multiverse provides the environment that selects structures that provide the best opportunity for complex information processing; allowing sentient systems such as life to evolve over the long term.
In other words it selects flexible adaptive structures, capable of developing the requisite complexity for opportunistic systems such as life to flourish.
Biology could therefore determine the laws of physics and boost its own survival in the process.
However future directions in Darwinism point to a Unified Theory, which extends beyond biology to encompass all processes. This hypothesis can only be credible if evolution applies at the very large as well as smallest physical scale.
Modern theories of the genesis and dynamics of the universe have been in play since Fred Hoyle’s Steady State hypothesis in the 40’s and Big Bang theory of the 60’s.
However from the 90’s radical cosmic evolutionary models have taken centre stage; and now in an exciting twist, evolution and information theory have been combined.
Although the Big Bang explains the expansionary nature of the universe, it is limited in its ability to explain why the initial conditions were so appropriate to our particular life processes. When trying to draw conclusions about the nature of the universe, it is essential to be aware of the self-selection process resulting from being Homo sapiens.
This is known as the Anthropic principle. Our evolution and that of the stars and planets before us, is predicated on the properties of matter and forces necessary to create the finely balanced existence of carbon-based observers, such as ourselves.
Theories of the cosmos based on the Anthropic theory suggest that the type of universe we perceive is only special because of these specific properties and relationships. There may well be zillions of other alternate universes, of which ours is representative of only a tiny fraction within a larger multi-universe.
From an evolutionary perspective, André Linde, a Russian physicist, was first off the mark with his model of the ‘self-reproducing or chaotic inflationary universe’, formulated in the early nineties. Earlier versions of the initial hyper-expansion of the universe were based on inflationary theories which postulated a highly specialised event, fine-tuned to very special conditions.
Linde's model suggested that inflation might be a much more generic process, based on the existence of underlying potential energy fields, which manifest in the form of a gigantic bubble or expansion of space. These would continue to spawn new bubble universes or creation events in a never-ending self-reproducing process.
This model dictates that the inflationary field is self-perpetuating, constantly triggering new universes with slightly different initial conditions, creating different laws of nature or relationships between matter and energy, depending on the strength of the field; in much the same way as a fractal pattern creates self-similar forms over and over again.
The solution, according to Linde's theory, is that sooner or later out of all the trillions of possibilities, a universe is generated with just the right mix of force and matter fields to allow the possibility of life as we know it to emerge.
No sooner had the ramifications of this revolutionary proposal settled into the psyche of the scientific community than the next major conceptual leap forward in cosmological models was proposed by leading physicist Lee Smolin.
Our own universe would seem to be far from typical, much larger than expected from a Big Bang event. Why did inflation, an ultra-rapid stretching of space-time, continue as long as it did; precisely long enough to allow stars, planets and humans to evolve? A shorter burst would have caused a proto-universe to collapse. A longer burst would have spread matter too thinly for stars to form. Smolin instead proposed a truly evolutionary explanation based on black hole creation.
Only in the 80s was it realised that gravitational forces could cause our universe to eventually collapse into a singularity or tiny incompressible seed in a mirror image of its creation. At the same time, John Wheeler conjectured that black holes might generate new regions of space-time or white holes, with new parameters and these would be the seeds of new universes. In other words, it was also realised that the laws of relativity would allow material falling into a black hole in our four-dimensional space-time universe to re-emerge in another space-time set of dimensions as another Big Bang event.
Each singularity according to this theory, has its own set of space-time dimensions forming a bubble universe within a larger dimensional space-time- a meta-universe.
At its most basic level, Smolin's theory describes a universe that has evolved to maximise production of black holes and hence the production of alternate universes. The parameters that maximise the production of black holes also maximise the potential for the production of life through the generation of carbon molecules.
According to Smolin's theory, our universe constantly gives birth to new universes. With the right initial conditions, these will produce black holes more effectively, leaving more off-spring than other universes. In other words, they will be selected in the biological Darwinian sense according to the rules of mutation, selection and replication.
The revolutionary idea that Smolin has introduced is that each baby universe is a slightly mutated form of its parent, with slightly altered physical parameters. If these changes allow a slightly larger degree of inflation, this may kick-start a larger universe that does not collapse as quickly and which will eventually have the capacity to create stars, planets, carbon, life and even larger and more fecund universes.
Smolin’s evolutionary natural selection theory is of course the cosmological equivalent of Darwin's biological theory.
In biology a system attempts to adapt to its environment in order to survive. This is the driving force behind the process of evolution. Therefore as an evolutionary system it should also apply to our universe.
By evolving the capability to generate life, the universe has created the capacity to move beyond the state of inanimate matter to that of a living sentient entity, such as Gaia on a larger scale.
This evolving, ‘becoming’ view also answers some age-old problems such as why are things the way they are. Why is the universe in a state that just happens to support life?
Before the self-organising cosmic evolutionary thesis was developed, circumstantial evidence suggested that the physical constants of the universe were randomly generated. As previously discussed, the standard Anthropic hypothesis says that we exist in just one of an infinite or very large number of universes, each with its own constants and laws of nature; a small proportion of which are conducive to the creation of life as we know it.
The second alternative, Intelligent Design, suggests a supernatural force or deity has specifically designed our universe according to its own blueprint. This hypothesis carries no supporting scientific evidence.
Now Smolin’s evolutionary theory, together with a new information foundation, offers a third way of explaining our existence.
This theory proposes that the multiverse provides the environment that selects structures that provide the best opportunity for complex information processing; allowing sentient systems such as life to evolve over the long term.
In other words it selects flexible adaptive structures, capable of developing the requisite complexity for opportunistic systems such as life to flourish.
Biology could therefore determine the laws of physics and boost its own survival in the process.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Future Darwinism- Evolution Mark 2.0
A phase change in the evolutionary process- a second phase of Hyper-evolution appears inevitable.
As human society begins to achieve a deeper and more intimate understanding of the primary evolutionary imperative shaping its destiny, he predicts a new form of evolution will emerge, accelerating the already exponential pace of change to an extreme level- Evolution Mark 2.0.
The process will manifest in response to a deeper understanding by society of the implications of the evolutionary process itself. The resulting amplifying feedback will generate a glimpse of life’s true potential, accelerating the already massive momentum of evolution and resulting in a rate of change that is forecast to reach hyper-exponential levels in the near future.
If human civilisation is considered to be an information processing and learning system, then the major factors governing the rate of uptake of new knowledge are the capacity for integration into society’s institutions and cultural frameworks, together with the urgency or adaptive pressure of human survival needs.
The rapid drying of the forests four million tears ago produced great survival pressure on all species. But early hominids survived because of their cognitive, structural and social capacity to achieve bipedal locomotion, make crude tools and develop hunting and scavenging strategies consistent with a more open grassland environment.
The same imperatives apply to the capacity of modern humans to adapt to today’s major survival challenges such as global warming, ecological disasters, endemic conflict and economic collapse. Meeting these challenges involves active adaptation through problem solving – the heart of the evolutionary process.
Already an awareness of the pervasive and rapidly accelerating power of evolution is beginning to be felt through the enormous scientific, technological and social advances in our civilisation. This insight creates the evolutionary feedback loop- to actively engage evolution in helping meet today’s complex survival challenges. This further accelerates the knowledge discovery process, which in turn would generate further evolutionary insight and application.
A significant additional impetus would therefore be gained from a deeper understanding of the driving role of the evolutionary paradigm- a global awareness of the engine underlying life's progress. This would eventually create an explosive realisation of life’s future potential, as already debated by a number of eminent physicists, cosmologists and philosophers.
Such a state of hyper-evolution would lead inevitably to a more melioristic outcome for life through the acquisition and leverage of almost limitless knowledge and its by-product wisdom. The caveat that should be applied however relates to the resulting speedup of change, which would quickly reach a mind-numbing level.
As this rate increases to the point of incompatibility with the human capacity to absorb it, new social structures and modes of cognitive processing based on artificial intelligence techniques will emerge to help humans cope.
According to David Tow, this is already occurring. Even as the amount of information expands beyond human horizons, we are developing techniques to bring it under control. Like a fractal image, cybernetic life forms and intelligent machines are evolving in the same way as biological life- mutating to become increasingly intelligent. These act as proxies for humans, managing complex processes and roaming cyber-space- searching, filtering and processing data from an already overwhelming pool.
The unknown factor in this scenario is whether the level of hyper-evolution is capable of producing sudden and catastrophic regression. But optimistically, before this could engulf humanity, an adaptive process would kick in. Simulations would be performed allowing the critical threshold to be avoided until further techniques were developed to manage the potential risks.
Hyper-evolution can be expected to become a part of a new global paradigm within the next thirty years- 2040, based on current rates of knowledge growth and coinciding with the evolution of the super-intelligent Web 4.0. This will rapidly transform all aspects of our culture and civilisation, including accelerating acceptance of the global entity of meta-life, combining biological and artificial forms.
Also implicit in the notion of Evolution Mark 2.0 is the capacity of life to extract itself from the day-to-day pressure of a treadmill existence, finally becoming aware of its glittering potential- forever co-dependent on the evolutionary process.
Blog site- http://futureoflifeblog.blogspot.com
As human society begins to achieve a deeper and more intimate understanding of the primary evolutionary imperative shaping its destiny, he predicts a new form of evolution will emerge, accelerating the already exponential pace of change to an extreme level- Evolution Mark 2.0.
The process will manifest in response to a deeper understanding by society of the implications of the evolutionary process itself. The resulting amplifying feedback will generate a glimpse of life’s true potential, accelerating the already massive momentum of evolution and resulting in a rate of change that is forecast to reach hyper-exponential levels in the near future.
If human civilisation is considered to be an information processing and learning system, then the major factors governing the rate of uptake of new knowledge are the capacity for integration into society’s institutions and cultural frameworks, together with the urgency or adaptive pressure of human survival needs.
The rapid drying of the forests four million tears ago produced great survival pressure on all species. But early hominids survived because of their cognitive, structural and social capacity to achieve bipedal locomotion, make crude tools and develop hunting and scavenging strategies consistent with a more open grassland environment.
The same imperatives apply to the capacity of modern humans to adapt to today’s major survival challenges such as global warming, ecological disasters, endemic conflict and economic collapse. Meeting these challenges involves active adaptation through problem solving – the heart of the evolutionary process.
Already an awareness of the pervasive and rapidly accelerating power of evolution is beginning to be felt through the enormous scientific, technological and social advances in our civilisation. This insight creates the evolutionary feedback loop- to actively engage evolution in helping meet today’s complex survival challenges. This further accelerates the knowledge discovery process, which in turn would generate further evolutionary insight and application.
A significant additional impetus would therefore be gained from a deeper understanding of the driving role of the evolutionary paradigm- a global awareness of the engine underlying life's progress. This would eventually create an explosive realisation of life’s future potential, as already debated by a number of eminent physicists, cosmologists and philosophers.
Such a state of hyper-evolution would lead inevitably to a more melioristic outcome for life through the acquisition and leverage of almost limitless knowledge and its by-product wisdom. The caveat that should be applied however relates to the resulting speedup of change, which would quickly reach a mind-numbing level.
As this rate increases to the point of incompatibility with the human capacity to absorb it, new social structures and modes of cognitive processing based on artificial intelligence techniques will emerge to help humans cope.
According to David Tow, this is already occurring. Even as the amount of information expands beyond human horizons, we are developing techniques to bring it under control. Like a fractal image, cybernetic life forms and intelligent machines are evolving in the same way as biological life- mutating to become increasingly intelligent. These act as proxies for humans, managing complex processes and roaming cyber-space- searching, filtering and processing data from an already overwhelming pool.
The unknown factor in this scenario is whether the level of hyper-evolution is capable of producing sudden and catastrophic regression. But optimistically, before this could engulf humanity, an adaptive process would kick in. Simulations would be performed allowing the critical threshold to be avoided until further techniques were developed to manage the potential risks.
Hyper-evolution can be expected to become a part of a new global paradigm within the next thirty years- 2040, based on current rates of knowledge growth and coinciding with the evolution of the super-intelligent Web 4.0. This will rapidly transform all aspects of our culture and civilisation, including accelerating acceptance of the global entity of meta-life, combining biological and artificial forms.
Also implicit in the notion of Evolution Mark 2.0 is the capacity of life to extract itself from the day-to-day pressure of a treadmill existence, finally becoming aware of its glittering potential- forever co-dependent on the evolutionary process.
Blog site- http://futureoflifeblog.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
