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)
1
The most incomprehensible fact about the
universe is that it is comprehensible.
Albert Einstein.
2
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
3
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
4
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 ...)
5
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 -usuallybased on facts.
6
Philosophy
Theory
…
Theory
…
Law
Fact
Fact
Law
…
Fact
Fact
…
7
« 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.
8
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
9
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]
10
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)
11
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.
12
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
13
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)
14
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.
15
(Gardner 2003, p287).
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 ?
16
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.
17
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.
Biology (yesterday)
Physics (nowadays)
(1) Why are the different species as
they are ?
(1) Why are the physical laws and
constants as they are ?
(2) Species are timeless categories.
(2) Laws and constants are timeless.
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.
Biology (yesterday)
Physics (nowadays)
(1) Why are the different species as
they are ?
(1) Why are the physical laws and
constants as they are ?
(2) Species are timeless categories.
(2) Laws and constants are timeless.
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.
Biology (yesterday)
Physics (nowadays)
(1) Why are the different species as
they are ?
(1) Why are the physical laws and
constants as they are ?
(2) Species are timeless categories.
(2) Laws and constants are timeless.
20
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.
21
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)
22
von Neumann’s self-reproducing
automaton
von
Name
Neumann
(1948)
Exemple : the cell
Description
1
Blueprint
The information
contained in the DNA
Plan for the construction of
the offspring
A
Factory
Cell
Carries out the construction
C
Controller
The regulatory
mechanisms of the
mitose
Ensures the factory follows
the plan
B
Duplicating
machine
The reproduction of the Transmits a copy of the
DNA
blueprint to the offspring
23
Applied to Smolin's theory
Smolin’s theory
Name
Description
Physical laws and
constants
Blueprint
Plan for the construction of the
offspring
Universe at large
Factory
Carries out the construction
?
Controller
Ensures the factory follows the plan
?
Duplicating
machine
Transmits a copy of the blueprint to
the offspring
24
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
25
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)
26
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)
27
Completion of Smolin’s theory
Smolin’s theory
Name
Description
Physical laws and
constants
Blueprint
Plan for the construction of the
offspring
Universe at large
Factory
Carry out the construction
Complexity theory- Controller
supplied rules of
emergence (Gardner)
Ensure the factory follows the plan
A world view or a
philosophy (my opinion!)
Highly evolved life
Duplicating
and intelligence
machine
(Gardner 2003, p122)
Transmitt a copy of the blueprint to
the offspring
28
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).
29
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).
30
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.
31
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 selffulfilling 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.
32
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
33
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, 34p111)
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.
35
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 ?
36
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 scalesthan the Global Brain utopia (Heylighen 2004) though fully
consistant with it.
37
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).
38
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 ? ...
39
Thank you for your attention !
Questions are very welcome now or later
clement.vidal@philosophons.com
40
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/nphdata_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
41
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.htm
Stewart, 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.
42
http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/vonneumann1951.pdf
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.
43