Thesis #2: Evolution is the result of diversity.
by Jason GodeskyThe concept of progress is actually rather new. Most prehistoric and ancient peoples saw history as a constantly repeating cycle, incompatible with any notion of advancement or degradation. The first conceptions of linear time are found only in the historical era. Confuscius, the Greeks and the Jews all believed that the world was, in fact, becoming worse. In this, they did concieve of history as linear, but as the opposite of progress. The Greeks held that the first, “Golden Age” had been the best era, with each succeeding age diminished from its predecessor’s glory. In Judaism, the “Fall of Man” in Genesis paints humanity in a fallen, exiled state. Later Jewish prophets outlined a messianic and eschatological timeline which extended this into an on-going societal free-fall that would end only by divine intervention with the Messianic Age. This final hope of the Messianic Age sowed the first seeds of the idea of progress.
In many ways, we can thank Christianity for the concept. In reconciling their belief in Jesus as the messiah, and the very obviously unfulfilled predictions of the Eschaton and the Messianic Age, Christians began to develop a more progressive concept of history. Their Christology immediately separates history into “before Christ” and “after Christ.” They mark the passage of years as Anno Domini-the “Year of Our Lord.” Since the New Covenant is, in the Christian mind, immediately superior to the Old–as Paul argues in his Letter to the Galatians–we already have fitted all of history into a broad sweep of progress. The condition of mankind was improved by the life of Christ. History has progressed.
The concept proved adaptable to changing memetic environments. The Enlightenment was a response to the superstitious worldview that preceded it, and like so many philosophical responses, was prone to attempts to counter-balance its opponents by going equally far in the opposite direction. The Enlightenment defined humanity as unique for its faculty of Reason, and celebrated that Reason as the seat of mankind’s “redemption” from its state of ignorance and savagery. The Enlightenment promised an optimistic future, where humanity triumphed over every obstacle in its way thanks to the unstoppable power of Reason. As E.O. Wilson described it in Consilience:
Inevitable progress is an idea that has survived Condorcet and the Enlightenment. It has exerted, at different times and variously for good and evil, a powerful influence to the present day. In the final chapter of the Sketch [for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind], “The Tenth Stage: The Future Progress of the Human Mind,” Condorcet becomes giddily optimistic about its prospect. He assures the reader that the glorious process is underway: All will be well. His vision for human progress makes little concession to the stubbornly negative qualities of human nature. When all humanity has attained a higher level of civilization, we are told, nations will be equal, and within each nation citizens will also be equal. Science will flourish and lead the way. Art will be freed to grow in power and beauty. Crime, poverty, racism and sexual discrimination will decline. The human lifespan, through scientifically based medicine, will lengthen indefinitely.
Though the Enlightenment placed its faith in Science, rather than in deities, this belief in progress remains no less a leap of faith for it. The idea of progress–particularly of humanity’s constant self-improvement through the application of Reason–became as fundamental a belief for the secular humanists as the redeeming power of Christ was for the Christians they proceeded. The beliefs fulfilled similar needs, as well, by promising similar outcomes–even if brought about by entirely different processes. Both comforted their believers with the promise that the current misery was only temporary, and that a new, better day was waiting on the horizon for those who soldiered on.
Little wonder, then, that when Darwin challenged the conceit of our species’ superiority by suggesting we were mere animals, those that did not reject the evidence entirely instead comforted themselves with the myth of progress. In the popular mind, the word “evolution” became nearly a synonym for “progress,” the process by which species “improve” themselves. In fact, evolution has nothing to do with “progress” at all.
Evolution, technically defined, is merely a change in allele frequency in a population over time. In one generation, 15% have a given gene; in the next, it is only 14.8%. Iterated over generations, this may lead to the complete extinction of the allele. The idea of evolution predates Darwin, as such change is immediately observable and undeniable. Darwin made two contributions to this; the first was defining the first mechanism for evolution in the process of natural selection, the second his contention that such evolution satisfactorily explains the origin of species.
Since the Neolithic, herders have practiced artificial selection with their livestock. If a given cow produces more milk than the others, or is more docile and easy to control, then you simply give that cow more time with the bulls, so that she will have more children. The next generation of the herd will have more docile cows that produce more milk. The herder has artificially selected for traits he desires. Over enough generations, this could lead to the entire herd being docile and producing more milk.
Darwin’s concept of natural selection merely suggests that this can also happen without the conscious guidance of a herder. A giraffe with a slightly longer neck may be able to reach foliage in trees more easily. He will be better and more easily fed, giving him more time to dally with the ladies and concieve young, who are also more likely to have slightly longer necks. Over enough generations, this could easily explain the modern state of the giraffe, the same as artificial selection sufficiently explains the state of the modern cow herd. The difference being, no single entity was consciously guiding the giraffes to that end.
The seeds of these thoughts were planted during Darwin’s time aboard the Beagle. During this time, he visited the Galapagos Islands, and noted both the similarities and differences of birds on those islands to birds on the mainland. He noted the similarities suggesting they had once been a single species, and the differences specifically adapted to the Galapagos’ unqiue ecology. Darwin allowed the implications of his natural selection to play out. If two populations of a given species are separated, each will continue changing with each generation, but now separated, their changes will diverge. Over sufficient generations, the two groups will become too divergent to interbreed any longer. Two new species will have formed.
In its truest essence, then, evolution is nearly irrefutable. “Survival of the fittest,” is a true shorthand, if we understand “fittest” to refer to the ability to produce young, as well as being severely restricted to a given locale. In this case, it becomes a tautology; if a creature possesses some trait that will make it more likely to have young, then it is more likely to have young. The controversy comes from the implication of this statement. If true (and how could it not be?), then all the diversity of life can be accounted for in a natural fashion. Gods can still be invoked if one insists; evolution could be seen as G-d’s paintbrush, or Genesis as a poetic account of evolution, as all but the most hardline, fundamentalist Christians believe, but they are not necessary. The existence of life itself is no longer a proof for the existence of G-d.
Evolution, then, is simply a consequence of diversity. All organisms are subject to “dumb luck,” and untold heritages of the world were pre-emptively snuffed out by rocks falling at the most inopportune moments. Yet, the diversity of populations of organisms played with the probability of that dumb luck. Falling stones did not kill the swift and the slow in equal measure. Trees with flame-retardant seeds inherited the earth after enough forest fires had gone through. Evolution happens, as the inevitable consequence of a diverse world. As Dawkins abstracted it in The Selfish Gene, the diversity of possible chemical reactions meant that, eventually, a reaction would occur that reproduced itself. Such a reaction would have a higher probability of occuring again, as it was no longer relying on pure chance to do so. Anything that reproduces itself–even ideas–are subject to natural selection and evolution.
What, then, is the “goal” of evolution, if we can speak of such a thing? The marriage of evolution and progress has left many with the notion that evolution is driving towards some endpoint, that we are progressing ever closer to some perfect state. Usually, this is formulated as evolution’s drive towards greater complexity. Such a “drive” towards complexity, however, is ultimately a mirage, an illusion created by the unique myopia of our scale.
There is a certain baseline of simplicity for all things. No atom can be simpler than hydrogen, for example. There is a baseline for DNA where, if it were any simpler, it would not be able to reproduce itself, and thus would no longer be DNA. There is a baseline, somewhere around the complexity of the virus–whether above or below is a matter of some debate–where any more simplicity would yield something no longer alive. From this baseline, there is nowhere to go but up. Diversity spreads out in all possible directions. There is infinite diversity in the space that is equally simple, hugging close to the baseline. Diversity also moves up, towards more complex. If we were to graph such dispersion, it would not look like an arrow shooting up into the stratosphere of complexity; it would be a hemisphere against a solid floor, with its radius constantly growing.
The evidence for this view is clear and intuitive. If evolution drives ever greater complexity, rather than simply diversity, why then is the vast majority of life on earth single celled? Instead, this distribution of life–with almost all of it existing at lower orders of complexity, and the numbers of species diminishing as we climb into greater levels of complexity–is exactly the hemisphere of diversity. Nowhere do we see the straight line of “progress,” unless we track only our own, specific evolutionary path, and ignore everything else. If we stare at the radius pointing straight up and ignore the rest of the hemisphere, then, and only then, can we convince ourselves that evolution is about “progress.”
Consider the case of the Neandertal. Larger, stronger and faster than normal humans, our success (and their failure) was once attributed to their inferior intellect. In fact, their brains were noticeably larger than our own. While this may simply be a matter of ennervating muscle tissue, it means their physical faculties were at least the equal of our own, if not superior. Culturally, the only evidence of adaptation to changing stimulus we have in the Paleolithic is the Châtelperronian toolset, an ingenious integration of Acheulean and Mousterian technology. It is not found associated with “modern” humans, however, but with Neandertals. With their intellectual abilities in greater doubt, many turned to Bergman’s Rule to explain their demise: Neandertals were cold-adapted, and could not survive in the changing climate of the end of the Pleistocene. However, Neandertals have been found throughout the Middle East in areas which, while once colder than they are now, were never so cold as to justify the idea that Neandertals were doomed by their cold adaptation.
There is yet no angle to the Neandertals’ extinction besides sheer, dumb luck that does not present a host of problems. It seems, regardless of which attribute we value most, Neandertals were at least our equals, and perhaps even our betters. Their extinction, and our success, may be a case of evolution picking the worse candidate; it may simply be randomly choosing between two equally qualified candidates. What it seems very strongly to not represent is a case of “progress.” Instead, it is simply change.
This highlights one of the last important traits of evolution: its ambivalence. A friend of Darwin’s once tried to develop a system of ethics based on the conviction that, while evolution is inevitable, it is also a monstrous process, and that which helps it along is itself immoral. I argue that evolution can, indeed, be monstrous, but is not always so. Like everything else, good and evil are matters of proximity. Evolution sometimes makes things better; sometimes, it makes them worse. Evolution is driven by diversity, and in general creates even more diversity, but it is also blind and unconscious. It operates on immediate results, leaving long-term errors to be resolved by time. It is a process of continual trial and error, as it allows long-term mistakes to correct themselves with self-destruction. Thus, at any given point, we must be careful to declare anything an evolutionary “success” by its current survival–as it may just as easily be a terrible mistake in the midst of eliminating itself.
Special thanks here to Mark Meritt, whose master’s thesis, “The Unsustainability and Origins of Socioeconomic Increase” was fundamental to my understanding of the relationship between evolution, diversity, complexity and the myth of progress.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 24 July 2005 @ 7:56 PM
How do you get diversity without evolution?
Comment by brandon — 25 July 2005 @ 12:51 PM
Before evolution can begin, you first have random chemical reactions. Gravity makes hydrogen atoms clump together, and ignite in nuclear reactions that fuse them into other, heavier elements. Diversity is not only a property of life; it is just as much a property of inert matter, chemical reactions, atomic relationships, molecules, and everything else in the universe.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 25 July 2005 @ 1:36 PM
*sigh*
Comment by Anonymous — 26 July 2005 @ 11:29 AM
You have something to say, anonymous?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 July 2005 @ 11:35 AM
Hey man, sometimes a guy just feels like sighing…and letting the whole internet know that he’s sighing.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 26 July 2005 @ 4:05 PM
It was a question. Far be it from me to infringe an anonymous guest’s sighing rights, but in most cases, it indicates some kind of problem. I hate to leave such problems unaddressed, though. So I was inviting her to elaborate. If there is no elaboration and our nameless friend was simply exercising his right to exhale in a most public and dramatic manner, then she may simply respond, “No, not really.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 July 2005 @ 4:28 PM
Something to say…no not really, but a quote comes to mind:
“The first-cause and prime-mover argument, brilliantly proffered by St. Thomas Aquinas in the fourteenth century (and brilliantly refuted by David Hume in the eighteenth century), is easily turned aside with just one more question: Who or what caused and moved God?”
Michael Shermer
As the quote may hint, I would simply ask the same question again. You should be aware that evolution, like diversity, is not only a property of life. It can be applied to memes, languages, cultures, civilizations, and even the universe. You say that evolution was a product of diversity because a diversity of random chemical reactions and such spawned the evolution of life. Much like Hume asking where God came from, I ask you where did the diversity that spawned the evolution of life come from if not from the evolution of the universe and all in it? The universe started as a nothing, then bang it was something, then more somethings, and more somethings, and even more somethings. It went from nothing, to a diversity of somethings that spawned life on our little blue and green dot. Where did the diversity you allude to come from?
Comment by Anonymous — 28 July 2005 @ 12:15 PM
The universe is not a species (so far as we know) and therefore, does not evolve.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 28 July 2005 @ 12:30 PM
Hey –
Mike that’s a cop out!
Evolutionary principles can certainly be applied to physics, at least when you are talking about something as complex as a star, a galaxy or the university as a whole.
However, back to the original question…. why does there have to be ANY first cause? Jason is not suggesting that evolution was Caused(capital “C”) by diversity, he is merely saying that evolution depends upon diversity.
I’ve always found the strongest argumnet about the whole ‘first cause’ argument (in any field or application) to be this… even if there is a ’cause’ to point to, that cause does not need to be anything significant. DesCartes included the assumption the the cause must be greater than that which it created.(I don’t know off hand if Thomas did) Demonstrably false. Case in point. Forest fire and cigarette butt…
Janene
Comment by Janene — 28 July 2005 @ 1:52 PM
Oh-ho, now this is interesting!
My understanding is that there is some doubt about the Big Bang theory these days, but my physics is not strong enough to really understand the nuance of those arguments. So for the sake of argument, let’s assume the Big Bang theory, as usually concieved, is true.
We start with a single point (having no width, height or depth) of infinite density. “Something” triggers a Big Bang, so that this point expands in all directions, now encompassing all dimensions within it. Density is no longer infinite, because space now exists. All matter–at this point nothing more than the simplest of all atoms, the hydrogen atom with one proton and one electron–goes flying out in all directions. It is not uniformly distributed. The instability of hydrogen and the clustered dispersion of matter allows gravity to snowball, creating stars. Nuclear fusion begins, creating all the other elements. Supernovas spew those elements out into the cosmos. These processes continue, creating other stars which now draw not only hydrogen atoms, but other elements into an accretion disk, creating planets, asteroids, comets, etc.
Evolution can happen on any self-replicating process. If the probability of any random chemical reaction occuring by chance is p, then the probability of the same, random reaction occuring twice is p2. However, the probability of any random, self-propogating reaction occuring twice is just p–once it happens once, it’s guaranteed, by the very nature of self-propogation, to happen again. This is why self-propogating phenomena are so prolifigate. Self-propogating phenomena–including life, memes, languages, cultures, and civilizations–are all subject to the principles of natural selection. Thus, evolution is not just a synonym for diversity. It is a process that arises in any sufficiently diverse system, that “runs on” diversity, to create still more diversity.
So what was the “first cause”? Whatever that “something” was that set off the Big Bang, and whatever that infinite point came from in the first place. Space and time are properties internal to our universe; I am unsure if humans are capable of understanding anything without those sure reference points. When we discuss such an ultimate “first cause,” these reference points fail us. This is why we have traditionally turned to the gods at this point. That may be the case, or it may not. I am agnostic concerning our ability to know such things. All that we know is confined to inside of space and time. Indeed, the very concept of causality requires space and time; trying to find causes beyond the confines of time is a meaningless and illogical pursuit.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 July 2005 @ 2:16 PM
Hey –
The Big Bang is actually in fine shape. There have been big deals made about various discoveries over the years… but the cosmologists have never considered any of them to be a problem. So your quick and dirty description works (although I would point out that protons, nuetrons and electrons did not even exist initially… and the ‘bumpyness’ of the universe came even later)
As to how it started in the first place… we will never know, but IMO the most likely ‘first cause’ was a simple quantum fluctuation. These happen all of the time, everywhere, with partiles spontaneously popping into and then out of existance… occasionally one of them ’survives’. I’m betting that something like that caused the initial ‘bang’.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 28 July 2005 @ 2:33 PM
The first chapter of Jeff Vail’s book take it even further:
Interesting–but again, my physics is too weak to speak to its accuracy. But interesting, nonetheless.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 July 2005 @ 2:48 PM
Anonymous: I am SO glad you didn’t stop at just sighing! (And I think everybody else is, too.) -_^
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 28 July 2005 @ 3:22 PM
Sorry Jason, but I disagree. The way I see it, diversity is a product of evolution—not dependant on it. If you follow any system from the “end� to the beginning, you go from diversity to nothing. If you follow life on this planet back to the beginning, you slowly trickle down from the myriads of species we see today, to the single spark of life that started it all. To get those myriads from a single spark of life you have to evolve. This, of course, is where you defaulted to the diversity of chemical reactions and the like, but if you continue to follow those back you still come to the same point and the same question: How do you get diversity without first evolving?
Comment by Anonymous — 29 July 2005 @ 11:59 AM
But evolution works because there is a diversity of entities with differing survival rates. Because of their diversity of various traits, some live longer than others. That’s the very essence of evolution. I’d turn the quandary on its head: how can there be evolution without diversity?
There are, of course, plenty of ways to get diversity other than evolution. If we have a bunch of perfectly identical stone balls, and I smash two of them against each other, we have introduced diversity: we have many identical stone balls, and now, several stone shards. This is essentially how diversity in atoms was first introduced, except by fusion rather than, err, fission, as this may be. Yet to call this “evolution” is quite a stretch.
Evolution is just one of many ways to introduce more diversity, but it is one that is itself dependent on other diversity already existing. As such, it is a process that comes into play later on.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 August 2005 @ 10:00 AM
If you can call a bunch of stone shards diversity, then I can certainly call the change evolution. If you can defer to the diversity of the universe that brought forth life on this planet and its subsequent evolution and diversity, then I can defer to the evolution of the universe that brought forth the diversity responsible for life on this planet.
Life on this planet was certainly dependent on the diversity of molecules and such that were floating around, but that diversity came from the evolution of a larger system.
Comment by Anonymous — 1 August 2005 @ 11:38 AM
OK, then you seem to be using a very unique definition of “evolution.” The technical meaning is a change in allele frequency over time. Only organisms have alleles, so obviously under this definition, even memetics is not a case of evolution. The broader usage refers to a change in the traits of any population of any self-propogating entities through differential rates of survival and/or propogation opportunities. Thus, atoms can diversify through such processes as fusion, but they cannot evolve, since they do not propogate themselves. Differential propogation is a crucial concept in evolution. Otherwise, everything is evolution, and the term becomes useless.
To return to my previous example, 500 identical stone balls have very little diversity. If I smash two together, I have 498 identical stone balls, and a great number of very diverse stone shards. It is unlikely that any two of these shards are quite alike. Diversity is increased. Yet, you are the first person I’ve ever heard refer to this as “evolution,” as it has nothing to do with differential survival or propogation opportunity, and is unrelated to the original, biological concept–”a difference of allele frequency over time”–even in the broadest general outline. You certainly can call it “evolution,” but only in the same sense that I can call a dog “cat.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 August 2005 @ 11:49 AM
Wow that was fun!
Let’s not forget that we’re using laguage to communicate and the argument here is: Which is the cause and which the effect, or is there no causal relationship between evolution and diversity?
So, first the lingual analysis: Diversity is the quality of being divergent. Divergent from what? From a pattern. What pattern? The pattern of self-replication. I think the concept of diversity is a tree-ish thing. You have a trunk (let’s just ignore the roots since they’ll simply mess up the analogy) where there’s only one path - but it goes upwards which is like self-replication. So we have an initial self-propagating chemical reaction (SPCR) (catalytic reciprocity?). As that propagation goes on, some randomness occurs and the outcome is a second SPCR. Now you have diversity because the pattern of continuing production of whatever SPCR 1 was making has split into two processes creating two different products. It branched. The quality of having branched is called diversity.
Evolution, technically, is about alleles. But people say language evolves, so let’s use the non-technical meaning. e- (from) volution (turning). From a cycle, I guess. That’s referring back to the pattern. But what is it that is from a cycle? Change, I guess, progress, some might like to say. I think of it as replication with errors. When errors are avoided for the most part, the cycle goes on making the same thing over and over. If there are enough errors, then the result is different, perhaps more capable of self-replication, in which case I suppose we’d say it has evolved.
I can create evolution by inventing a self-replicating system in which the replica is not an exact copy of the original. I can create diversity by smashing similar rocks together. It seems obvious which would lead to the other, doesn’t it? Once I create that self-replicating system, as long as it’s possible for copying-errors to occur, diversity will be the result. Not so with the rocks. I guess you could say that the possiblity of copying errors is what you’d call “diversity.” I would not. I’d just call it noise.
I don’t think you need any diversity for evolution. But I don’t think you need any evolution to get diversity either. It seems that if you have evolution, though, you won’t be able to avoid diversity. But it’s easy to have diversity and not get any evolution. I have to reject Thesis #2.
Comment by Dave Scotese — 2 August 2005 @ 1:44 AM
Oh, this is fun! Hmmm … okay. Let’s try this….
How can there be evolution, without diversity? Consider any set of identical, propogating entities A. All entities in A propogate with differences–their children are not the same as they are. This leaves us with two possibilities: either (1) the differences are determinative, so that in each generation all entities across the set are identical, even though elements from two different generations may vary (A1), or (2) the differences are random (A2).
In A1, each generation may, on one level, be considered a different, homogenous set. However, since these differences are determinative, we may also consider that each set is simply the same, identical entities in different stages, as with different, identical automatons, each in differing parts of their pre-determined dance. In this case, it is difficult to call what we are talking about “evolution,” since there is really no change to speak of. Butterflies emerge from caterpillars, but this is not an example of evolution. The propogation of set A1 is in an analogous situation, except that butterfly to caterpillar to butterfly again is played out iteratively across generations, rather than within generations. They are, in essence, the same, unchanging species, with distinct phenotypes at set iterative intervals.
In A2, even though the original set is homogenous, their children are not. The first set is incapable of evolution, but their children are. Most of these diverse traits will impact their probability of propogation in some way. Some are more likely to survive; some less. Some are more likely to breed; some less. This results in evolution. Diversity leads to differing probabilities of propogation; differing probabilities of propogation leads to evolution. Thus, we can say that this diversity results in evolution.
Is it possible for evolution to arise without diversity? If we accept your definition of “copying with errors,” which is a reasonable definition, then we should consider some system X that copies itself, but introduces random errors occasionally. There can be no diversity in a set of 1, which X is, but can we refer to “evolution” with only one generation of reproduction? Possibly.
Hmmm … I think you caught me.
Yup, you definitely caught me.
Congratulations, Dave, you win the thread! Be proud: you are one of the few, the proud, the people who’ve crossed wits with me and won.
OK, then, thesis #2 needs to be changed to: “Evolution yields diversity.” Evolutions is the result of diversity only in the real world; it is not necessarily so in a logical sense. I believe we can all agree on the new, reformed second thesis, no?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 August 2005 @ 10:03 AM
I must have missed the part that says diversity always results in evolution.
Where did the random errors come from if there is no diversity?
Yup, you definitely caught me.
I don’t know, man. We’re using some extremely liberal definitions of “evolution” to refute this point. It’s like making the argument,
Nobody is perfect.
X is a nobody.
Therefore, X is perfect.
That’s not logic. That’s a word game.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 2 August 2005 @ 1:17 PM
Hey –
I’m with Mike on this one….
Diversity refers to everything whereas evolution only refers to those things which are self replicating. Generally organic life, but I won’t dismiss non-organics or other unknown possibilities.
So if we are talking about chicken and the egg, which came first, blah blah blah… let me ask this…
Could anything have developed the ability to be ’self replicating with errors’ if it was limited by wokring within a single element, with a single possible configuration?
I don’t like chiacken and egg discussions, because I find that in most cases, it is a question that cannot be answered without falling back on a cyclical, mutually reinforcing, systemic answer. But in this case, if the universe consisted of nothing but hydrogen molecules, I don’t think that you can really make any case for evolutionary behavior coming to exist.
Janene
ps Jason, when you gonna let us have bb codes? I have to go and redo all of emphasis codes everytime a write a response
Comment by Janene — 2 August 2005 @ 2:24 PM
Well, any sufficiently diverse set will lead to evolution. For any set which does not include any propogating elements, its diversity can be increased by adding a propogating element. Diversity is further increased if these entities propogate with difference.
It’s a logical argument, not a practical argument. The system is designed to introduce errors. Like an HP Epson printer. One HP Epson printer has no diversity, since it’s only one printer. If it prints off 500 sheets of paper, it introduces diversity, because each of those 500 sheets will be screwed up in some new and unique way.
Not a practical element at all, since it requires our propogating system to pop into existence formed whole. But it’s logically possible, and that’s the important point.
“Copying with errors” is not a liberal definition of evolution at all. It’s actually quite tame. Though I think closer to the point would be the much more verbose, “emergence of diversity in a set of propogating entities due to differential propogation opportunities.”
Oh, this discussion stopped having anything to do with reality a long time ago. But, if some wholly formed system just popped into existence somehow and began propogating itself, but never quite right … well, you’d have evolution there without any diversity.
It’s impossible in reality, but when did logic ever have a good relationship with reality?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 August 2005 @ 4:05 PM
To quote Boos…
This is just too silly!
Janene
Comment by Janene — 2 August 2005 @ 5:58 PM
[i]I give you…[/i] [b]BBCode[/b].
Comment by Jason Godesky — 3 August 2005 @ 12:00 PM
I’m going to put this here so I remember to include it in the book version:
— Lee Frank, “History, Progress, and Technology“
Comment by Jason Godesky — 2 November 2005 @ 5:00 PM
Is evolution the result of diversity or is the opposite true?
I think this might be clarified with a Buddhist principle, the impermanence of all phenomena. When you think about it, it’s obvious that although there are degrees of stability, nothing is absolutely so. Everything, sentient or not, in our universe must change. It was this universal principle that made the big bang necessary. We could say that this requirement to change causes diversity, complexity and evolution. If we are going to extend the definition of evolution to include non-life, this principle of change could be called evolution.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 11 November 2005 @ 10:21 AM
So…did change cause the big bang or did the big bang cause change?
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 12 November 2005 @ 1:53 AM
Both…
Of course, we can’t prove the former, only the latter… but I don’t care. Its still ‘both’
Janene
Comment by Janene — 12 November 2005 @ 9:37 AM
Benjamin and Janene: I don’t think we can know or prove this scientifically at this time. The concept of a first cause is not necessary in Buddhism as time and space are seen as infinite. Creation and decomposition are a continuing natural process, which doesn’t require a deity. Obviously this is not consistent with Einstein’s theory.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 12 November 2005 @ 10:41 AM
Hey Bob –
Oh, I’m not talking first cause… I’m talking quantum physics. We will never be able to prove what occured to start off this whole thing, but quantum physics principals lead me to believe that the big bang started with a very basic quantum fluctuation. It makes sense. But is, totally unprovable, unless we find some way of leaving this universe, assuming that there are, in fact, others… interesting thought experiments, but no more.
On diversity and evolution… it is also both. Random Mutation creates diversity… natural selection reduces and codifies diversity. Both sides of the equation are built into the theory of evoltion. If you break it down to its most fundamental level, however, you CAN say that evolution is the result of diversity, simply because mutations have to happen before natural selection can play a role. Likewise, you could say that if DNA (or the primitive replicators that preceeded DNA) were perfect copying machines, then they would still be here and look the same as they first did (or, more fundamentally, that life itself would not exist if those replicators were perfect copiers)
Janene
Comment by Janene — 12 November 2005 @ 10:57 AM
Janene: This really is a chicken and egg discussion. I don’t have your knowledge on evolutionary theory. As a matter of fact I’m in the process of learning a bit from your site. Obviously diversity was necessary and did exist when biological life began. If however we go back to the big bang or the point where our known universe was born there was nothing to be diverse. Speaking of perfect copying machines I don’t think that is ever possible physically. It seems that in a sense out universe is absolutely divers. Although its possible in software, that’s not true of the medium that contains it.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 12 November 2005 @ 11:34 AM
Hey Bob –
Yeah, this discussion hits on my two of my biggest ’scholarly’ passions: Evolutionary Theory and Cosmology/Quantum Physics (the other being Ancient History). Its all about Origins, you see
For a good primer on Evolution, check out Richard Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker as an intro and The Selfish Gene for a really thorough examination. Then if you want more, look for Stephan Gould — he and Dawkins represent the two competing theories (really just subtle differences) of speciation. I find them compatible, but they fought like cats and dogs
Now as to ‘replicators’ — this is a term that Dawkins presented (not certain he was first, but he is the one I heard it from) to describe pre-life organic molecules. They replicated themselves through the simple expedient that DNA continues to use today: they had ‘open’ electrons that allowed them to bond with mirror image molecules, which then separated and combined with a second mirror image creating an ‘exact’ copy of the original. (exact except for errors). These things really are just simple molecuels in a chemical soup. Over time, different versions of these molecules formed symbiotic relationships until eventaully, the nucleus was born and so forth. This is a very simplified description, but you should get the idea.
On the Big Bang and diversity — this is where quantum mechanics comes in. According to Theory, quanta spontaneously ‘pop’ into being, in pairs (matter-antimatter). In most cases, these pairs almost instantaneously collide and destroy themselves once more. However, in rare instances, one or the other particle (at the end of the day, always the ‘matter’ particle — I’m not going to try and explain that, just trust me, or read Brian Green, Stephan Hawking, et al) survive and become ‘real’. I suspect that some variation on this is exactly what caused the big bang. Don’t ask me to explain that, though, because its something that my gut tells me, and I haven’t yet figured out the ‘how’ just yet….
Janene
Comment by Janene — 12 November 2005 @ 12:51 PM
Janene: Thanks for the information, I am intrigued but not well informed on both subjects. Although in ignorance, I tend to agree with your gut feeling. I also have a gut feeling that “the big bang� was not the first or the last but is part of a continuing process.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 12 November 2005 @ 1:35 PM
Hey Bob –
Yeah, my gut second’s yours on the whole cyclical thang…
Janene
Comment by Janene — 12 November 2005 @ 3:24 PM
This some GOOD stuff! Are you going to put it all in a book?
I just found this site, chasing an idea that came to me a couple of days ago. Evolution leads to diversity - what struck me was that that is at odds with the conventional interpretation of the words ’survival of the fittest’, which are taken to mean that imperfection will be mercilessly eliminated. The history of life clearly demonstrates that this isn’t so! Diversity has increased under the engine of evolution. How best to phrase this in a sound-bite? Survival of the slightly-different?
I ponder chicken-and-egg from time to time. Nature has a knack for producing things in parallel like that. It seems very hard for our brains to appreciate. Which came first, diversity or evolution? I wager they pulled each other out of the primordial soup by their bootstraps.
Comment by speedbird — 15 February 2006 @ 10:43 AM
Yup.
Diversity. Specifically, the diversity of the dispersion of hydrogen atoms in the newborn universe, such that gravity could pull them together and ignite stars. Fusion then created a greater diversity of elements, which were scattered about when they went nova, so that the second generation of stars could form planets with things like hydrogen, and metals, and oxygen and whatnot. That allowed for a diversity of chemcial reaction with that new diversity of atomic elements, which eventually led to a self-replicating protein. At that point, diversity had yielded the first thing capable of evolution, and evolution began creating still more diversity.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 15 February 2006 @ 10:50 AM
You’re assuming that the universe is not a self-replicating entity. If it is,the answer to the question is that diversity and evolution have both always existed.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 15 February 2006 @ 11:32 AM
Only if the universe replicates with differences and is subject to some kind of natural selection. Even then, the evolution of universes would arise from the fact that there was a diversity among the universes to begn with, not due to evolution, but simply due to the process of universal reproduction.
But at this point, we’ve entered the realm of ideas so speculative that it makes little sense even discussing them.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 15 February 2006 @ 11:54 AM
The question of which was first assumes a beginning. This is speculating that time is finite and had a beginning. The question itself whether diversity or evolution was first is senseless. If by beginning we mean the big bang that caused the present universe then the answer does depend on whether or not this was the evolution of a universe. The answer would still depend on how we divine evolution. Because we agree this is senseless we can’t answer Speedbird’s question.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 15 February 2006 @ 12:51 PM
Oops typo! I meant “how we define evolution”
Comment by Bob Harrison — 15 February 2006 @ 12:53 PM
There are many kinds of infinities. Start counting from 1; you can count forever. It’s infinite, but it has a beginning. Space and time may well be infinite, but they are physical properties of our universe. They do not exist before the universe; “before the universe” doesn’t even make sense. Time may be infinite (or it may not be), but it had a beginning.
The definition of evolution is simple, and discussed above: evolution is descent with change, or a change in allele frequency over time.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 15 February 2006 @ 1:18 PM
It seemed obvious that I meant infinite in the sense of no beginning and no end. There are cosmologists who do think, “before the universe� or before the big bang makes sense. How do you know that time had a beginning?
In your article and in the discussion that follows several meanings of evolution are used. (Meanings also evolve) Of course if we use change in allele frequency, there was diversity before DNA. If we talk about cosmic evolution as in Jeff’s book we don’t have an answer.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 15 February 2006 @ 1:50 PM
The meaning of “infinity” is never obvious. Some infinities are bigger than others, some have beginnings, some don’t … it’s a very confusing concept.
But we know that time had a beginning because time is part of our universe, just like space. Cosmologists refer to “before the Big Bang,” but they’re also fully well aware that they’re talking about “before time”–and since “before” is a property of “time,” that’s nonsense, the same way that you can’t talk about how big everything beyond space is. If time and space are all a single thing, then it has to have a beginning. So, for time not to have a beginning would up-end all of Einsteinian physics.
Even if we drop allele frequency, a key component of evolution is descent with modification. One entity does not “evolve,” evolution is a property of a linear succession. This was discussed in the original article. Evolution is not a mere synonym for “change.”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 15 February 2006 @ 2:37 PM
As usual we are complicating this discussion with linguistics. If, as is often done, you define the universe and time as that which can be known by Einsteinian physics, then you are linguistically correct. However the Einsteinian universe does not describe all of reality. Recent discoveries and new theories in physics make it quite reasonable to consider both time and space to be infinite without ends or boundaries. So we can’t know whether evolution preceded diversity or if the opposite is true since we can’t even know whether the question is ridiculous or not.
I was not speaking of one entity evolving, but a succession of self-propagating universes.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 15 February 2006 @ 7:28 PM
That is what the Einsteinian universe claims to be. If you can prove that assertion, you should publish it–you’ll revolutionize physics, introduce a whole paradigm shift, and be celebrated as one of the greatest physicists to ever live.
But not without origins–unless you also have evidence to similarly revolutionize our understanding of cosmology?
So I presumed, but while this might be possible, it remains extremely speculative in itself. Speculating based on that is then so far removed from any touchstone of known fact as to barely warrant the effort.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 15 February 2006 @ 7:45 PM
I think we can safely restrict diversity vs evolution discussion just to life on this planet without undermining the fundamental question of which came first. Do we have enough facts to answer whether evolution of life on earth was driven by diversity of original components, or whether diversity of these components was produced by evolutionary mechanisms?
Comment by _Gi — 15 February 2006 @ 9:05 PM
In terms of this planet, no, evolutionary began from the diversity of elements and chemical reactions on this planet. No evolution led to that. If any evolution is involved in that process, it’s of the cosmological variety.
If universes replicate, and if they reproduce with differences, and if this is a younger generation universe, then our universe might, itself, be a product of a kind of “evolution,” then we might be able to call the universe itself a product of evolution.
If we restrict the scope just to our planet, there’s no question. Diversity comes first, evolution follows from that.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 15 February 2006 @ 10:12 PM
And evolution increases diversity (paradoxically, by mercilessly eliminating less-fit solutions).
*
What do you think is the minimum diversity required for evolution?
*
I have a lot of time for the theory (I read it in Fritjof Capra) that evolution began when the first bubble of liquid became separated from the surrounding medium by some sort of membrane. This almost defines the ‘diversity’ required for evolution as a separation of something from its environment (and its fellows). From here flows the concept of homeostasis - things that maintain that separation - and even ideas like individual identity and the mind. I’m comfortable with arguing that evolution and *this* form of ‘diversity’ appeared together.
Comment by speedbird — 16 February 2006 @ 11:32 AM
“That is what the Einsteinian universe claims to be. If you can prove that assertion, you should publish it–you’ll revolutionize physics, introduce a whole paradigm shift, and be celebrated as one of the greatest physicists to ever live.â€?
I don’t think so Jason. Physicists need too much math and I had trouble with freshman calculus. Anyway I’d be too late. The paradigm shift happened just before the fall of the Soviet Union. Although originally theorized by the Russian physicist Alexei Starobinsky, and a little later in 1981 independently by Alan Guth, then at MIT, what is now known as inflation theory was not known or accepted by most cosmologists until Andrei Linde convinced Stephen Hawking of it’s feasibility at a conference in Moscow in October 1981. Since that time several new theories that incorporate inflation have been proposed. The Cyclic Model presented by Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok of Princeton and Cambridge respectively in 2004 is based on compression before instead of inflation immediately after the bang. There is now a range of theories of the origin of this universe that postulate a larger reality and, unlike the original Big Bang theory, are fairly compatible both with quantum theory and relativity. At this time Physics cannot offer us proof in this matter any more than Anthropology can prove that ancient hunter-gatherer tribes were egalitarian.
Big Bang theory as you explained it above (A singularity that exploded 13.7 years ago and includes all of reality) has not been considered likely by cosmologists since the acceptance of inflation. In order to differentiate between this universe, that may have begun with the Big Bang, and the total of reality, cosmologists now use terms like Universe as opposed to universe, or Multiverse, or Total Universe.
“But not without origins–unless you also have evidence to similarly revolutionize our understanding of cosmology?â€?
“In the ekpyrotic view of reality, everything that astronomers have ever observed is just a speck within the higher dimensions, and all of history since the Big Bang is but an instant in the infinity of time.”
David Spergel, a Princeton astrophysicist commenting on Steinhard and Turok ‘s work in Before the Big Bang Discover Feb 2004.
Time is an even more confusing term than infinity. Although we can define time as beginning with the Big Bang, we can only speculate about whether or not the total reality has a beginning. As you can see from the above quote it is not more speculative to say there is no beginning. Occam’s razor favors my position as then it’s not necessary to find a first cause which must come from a time and place that doesn’t exist. However, Jason, if you can prove that there must be a beginning, YOU could win a prize in physics.
Speaking of speculative, the premise of this Thesis (evolution is the result of diversity) is not only speculative but also specious. I don’t see why you feel the need to glorify diversity. Calling it the primary good as you do in Thesis 1 is ridiculous.
Just as hot and cold are opposites that describe temperature, diversity and uniformity are opposites that describe homogeneity. For carbon life to form and be sustained does require a particular range of homogeneity. If there were too much uniformity or too much diversity in this universe carbon based life as we know it could not have evolved. This is also true in the present. If there were not occasional diversity in genes evolution would cease. It would also cease if there were not enough uniformity in alleles and chromosomes. Just as certain ranges of hot and cold are necessary for certain purposes, so are different ranges of diversity and uniformity of value for different purposes.
“Evolution, then, is simply a consequence of diversity. … Evolution happens, as the inevitable consequence of a diverse world.�
Although a definite range of homogeneity was necessary for evolution to begin and for it to continue, there are many other necessities required. These include the correct amount of gravity to provide an atmosphere. Both the correct gravity and temperature to provide water in a liquid form. Life also requires the proper amount of the proper type of radiation from the sun for photosynthesis. There are many other necessary qualities required for the beginning and continuation of evolution and carbon based life.
A fire requires a source of oxygen, fuel, and a temperature high enough for combustion. If any one of these is missing, the fire cannot start or continue. Fire is not the inevitable consequence of any one of these properties, but requires all in the proper degree and proportion. I would say the same is true for evolution.
“There is infinite diversity in the space that is equally simple, hugging close to the baseline. Diversity also moves up, towards more complex. If we were to graph such dispersion, it would not look like an arrow shooting up into the stratosphere of complexity; it would be a hemisphere against a solid floor, with its radius constantly growing.�
I don’t understand this. Diversity and complexity of what? Infinite diversity of what? If you are just speaking of diversity and complexity in general, then the shape of your graph will only depend on the units you choose. If by diversity you mean the number of different species they can’t be infinite.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 20 February 2006 @ 7:49 PM
Hey –
hmmm… Compression Before the Big Bang? I haven’t seen that, yet, but I do have that Discover issue around here somewhere, so I’ll have to check it out, see what they are trying to explain with thier model.
I’m not quite sure of what you are trying to say, here, Bob.
Inflation is not contrary to the Big Bang… it merely modifies the history of the universe since the big bang. It explains how (and more recently, why) the universe is not homgeneous, why there are pockets of relative high and low density and why the cosmic background radiation is not uniform.
Likewise, the big Bang is still the only viable theory in Cosomology, even today. Interesting things are happening with M-Theory, that will expand our understanding of how the universe functions, but it does not change the basic outline of the formation of the universe (even if there are 13 dimensions, or seven, or nine…)
But it is important to note that this says absolutely NOTHING about what else may exist. If it is not in our universe there is no way to prove or disprove such an assertion. In somewhat the same way as ‘Black Holes have no hair.’
The quote you were asking about directly relates to Steven Gould’s Full House. At any given time in our history, 99.9% of the diversity of life on this planet has been single celled organisms. If you plotted out one point for each species on a graph, it would fluctuate between being entirely flat and representing a half circle. If you gave the graph three dimesions, then it would be a sphere.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 20 February 2006 @ 9:26 PM
“I don’t like chicken and egg discussions, because I find that in most cases, it is a question that cannot be answered without falling back on a cyclical, mutually reinforcing, systemic answer.” I hate this expression. Dinosaurs were laying eggs long before chickens came to be. Thus eggs came first. End of discussion. No cyclical thinking needed. The original egg layer was not a chicken, but chickens did almost certainly descend from them via evolution.
“but they fought like cats and dogs” and while I’m at it, this one bugs me too. I have a dog and two cats and the cats fight with one another far more than either of them fight with the dog or she with them.
I know this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Rather it is a caution that while we’re thinking about the semantic niggling of the topic we need to be aware of other linguistic fallicies as well.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 21 February 2006 @ 3:09 PM
Janene:
“I’m not quite sure of what you are trying to say, here, Bobâ€?
I was trying to say that prior to inflation theory, even most physicists would have agreed with Jason that if you accepted the Big Bang theory, as even the Pope did, then you accepted that this universe was all of reality and that it began with the bang. Inflation theory was able to explain how the big bang could happen using quantum theory. This led to the development of several new theories that postulate both no beginning and an infinite reality. Since a big bang could begin with a quantum fluctuation, it may happen again, might have happened before, and this may not have been the only one.
Jason cannot lean on Physics to state that there has to be a beginning. It is pure speculation to state either that there is or that there is not a beginning of the total reality. Therefore if cosmic evolution exists, reality, diversity, and evolution may also have always existed. Only by speculating can we answer the chicken and egg question of which was first.
I don’t have immediate access to ‘Full House’, but I’ve ordered it. If all that is meant is that there are more simple species than complex ones that seems intuitively obvious. I can understand that we can represent species as units of diversity. What is the unit for complexity? As you know, Janene, even one-celled life forms vary considerably in complexity.
Jason said, “The evidence for this view is clear and intuitive. If evolution drives ever greater complexity, rather than simply diversity, why then is the vast majority of life on earth single celled?�
Evolution is just turning out more and more variations. Occasionally a viable variation is more complex. Again it seems intuitive that fewer would be more complex. Just like the proverbial monkey on the typewriter will not often compose a meaningful thesis. Evolution is driving both diversity and complexity necessarily at differing rates. In spite of all the diversity, over time, evolution has been making progress in the creation of more complex species.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 21 February 2006 @ 6:58 PM
Jason != Janene
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 February 2006 @ 7:05 PM
Oh! Well, that makes so much more sense now.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 21 February 2006 @ 7:11 PM
I guess I’m dense. I don’t get it.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 21 February 2006 @ 7:13 PM
Hey –
Bob:
ummm, I disagree with that statement on both ends. I don’t think it is true that ‘prior to inflation’ most physicists thought that ‘this universe was all of reality’ for the same reason that I don’t think that most physicists hold the opposite view now. In both cases, I think most physicists would say that we cannot KNOW one way or the other. That we can play out as many ideas as we can come up with and they are all equally valid and invaldi — because there is no way, in any case, that any of those ideas can be tested in even the most minor way. That’s why I mentioned ‘Black Holes have no hair.’
Beyond that, I think you are crediting inflation theory as being something more than what it is. It covers a very narrow range of issues. to say that because of it, we can now validly hypothesis about what exists beyond our universe seems bizarre. Sort of like crediting Watson and Crick with Selfish Gene Theory…
It is pure speculation to discuss ANYTHING beyond our universe. Our Universe did have a beginning… and if we see a Big Cruch it will also have an end. Beyond that — those are questions for philosophy, not physics.
You’re intuitive grasp is slipping just a little there. The point is that evolution is NOT making ‘progress’ in the ‘creation of more complex species.’ Complexity is a side effect of evolution and nothing more. If tomorrow all multi-cellular life were wiped off the face of this planet this would not ’set evolution back’, nor would it be a ‘failure’ of evolution or anything else. In fact, on the scale of evolution it would hardly be noteworthy.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 21 February 2006 @ 7:43 PM
If I might clarify my thinking on chickens and their eggs:
Think of the piston engine in a car. Each piston goes through a cycle: suck-squeeze-bang-blow. Which came first?
Now think of a jet engine. There is still a cycle, but every component of it is occurring smoothly and simultaneously.
Now think about evolution.
My argument (admittedly, borrowed from McLuhan) is that jet-engine thinking is qualitatively different from piston-engine thinking.
Comment by speedbird — 22 February 2006 @ 6:55 AM
Thank you for using a metaphor that is more apt.
Comment by ChandraShakti — 22 February 2006 @ 11:37 AM
You can think that but this is from Andre Linde’s website (http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/): “Initially, inflation was considered as an intermediate stage of the evolution of the hot universe, which was necessary to solve many cosmological problems. At the end of inflation the scalar field decayed, the universe became hot, and its subsequent evolution could be described by the standard big bang theory. Thus, inflation was a part of the big bang theory. Gradually, however, the big bang theory became a part of inflationary cosmology. Recent versions of inflationary theory assert that instead of being a single, expanding ball of fire described by the big bang theory, the universe looks like a huge growing fractal. It consists of many inflating balls that produce new balls, which in turn produce more new balls, ad infinitum. Therefore the evolution of the universe has no end and may have no beginning.�
Also of interest is a paper written by a British journalist, and recommended by Linde: ‘Inflation for Beginners’ (http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm)
,
Even much of what we can say about the known universe is speculative. I agree its speculative to say that the total reality is infinite and has no beginning, however, it’s equally speculative to say the known universe is all there is or that all reality has a beginning. I think we must agree that Jason and we don’t know. This means it is also speculative to say whether or not diversity and evolution in the cosmological sense have always existed. Which is all I claimed at the begining of this discussion. By the way although black holes have no hair, there has been speculation, I believe by Hawking, that there might be some fuzz.
Nothing would be noteworthy without multi-cellular life as there would be no intelligence to note it.
Janene, I think you have a more thorough understanding of the intricacies of biological evolution than I do. However you don’t seem to have a holistic understanding of what it is. Biological evolution is a process caused by the interaction of natural forces in our universe, which, under the proper conditions, causes the formation of new forms of life.
Items that are created by intelligence are designed for a purpose. They can also have purposes not intended by the designer. For instance I bought a used lawn tractor. Although it was designed to cut grass, I don’t cut grass. Its purpose for me is to haul a trailer through my fields to distribute hay.
Evolution doesn’t have a designed purpose unless you intend to speculate on the existence of “Intelligent Design�. Nor does it have a goal to create diversity or complexity any more than Katrina had the goal to destroy New Orleans.
Through time the process of evolution has created both a diversity of life forms and more and more complex forms. Which of these, the diversity or the complexity, that is more important depends on the interest and the values of the person making that evaluation. To me the creation and continuance of intelligent life is a higher value than the diversity of other life forms. I value biological diversity both aesthetically and because it is necessary for the creation and maintenance of intelligent life forms. What is most noteworthy for me is the progress that has been made in the complexly that has enabled intelligence. If a person considered diversity as the “primary good� progress in diversity would be more important.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 22 February 2006 @ 4:33 PM
Hey –
Bob, did you just tell me that I do not have a ‘holistic view of evolution’ because I don’t happen to AGREE with you that humans are better than other life?
Wow.
I,personally, value life itself over any particular lifeform, or class of life forms.
Holistically, from ‘outside’, diversity is of MUCH GREATER value TO evolution and TO life, itself, than complexity could ever be.
On Inflation… I see that you are not that one overstating the importance of inflation, rather it is a ‘new’ theory that is making the rounds. I can’t really comment on that until I have time to read up on it in detail. I tend to be very skeptical of new physics theories until I have seen it presented in context with other well established theories. So until I find out how it relates to M-Theory and Quantum Physics, I will have to reserve judgement.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 22 February 2006 @ 5:24 PM
Janene:
In order to make an evaluation from “outside� there must be a conscious intelligence to make it. What could that be but a complex multi-celled life form? I also value all life, but value consious intellegent life more than simpler forms.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 22 February 2006 @ 5:42 PM
Why?
Who’s to say we really have consciousness or intelligence at all? We certainly don’t act like it.
What if bacteria also think they’re conscious and intelligent?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 February 2006 @ 5:45 PM
A million monkeys at a million typewriters is a great way to produce a lot of diversity.
Sure, they’ll eventually come up with the complete works of Shakespeare, but if that’s your goal, then you’ve come up with what might be the single worst possible method that could still yield the desired result.
So, evolution: cranks out diversity out the whazoo, but worst possible means of developing complexity that still has any chance of developing complexity. Obvious conclusion: evolution is all about greater complexity!
Wait a minute….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 February 2006 @ 5:47 PM
Bob –
It is NOT neccessary to have an outside intelligence to mkae that evaluation.
It is entirely possible to look at a system and determine if it is functioning well, or poorly or anywhere inbetween simply based upon the functioning of the system itself.
Granted, we would not be having this discussion if we did not have some sort of intelligence and the tools to communicate… but the idea is not the thing. I’m talking about the idea and you keeping wanting to divert that onto the thing.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 22 February 2006 @ 5:53 PM
I waited. Evolution isn’t about anything just as hurricanes aren’t about destroying cities. Evolution may create a lot of biodiversity and comparatively few complex life forms. I don’t like the only alternative, which would be artificial creation of life forms. It isn’t that evolution is about complex life forms its just that, if you value intelligent life, it’s the most important result. The fact that a vast amount of biodiversity is also created is an added benefit. Evolution is a process that you are trying to make subjective.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 22 February 2006 @ 6:50 PM
You just inverted the apparent purpose of the universe: the most important result is a vast amount of biodiversity. The fact that intelligent life is also created is an added benefit.
Systems do not need to have conscious “intent” in order to have obvious ends. No one feels any great need to correct my anthropomorphism if I say, “The circulatory system’s purpose is to move nutrients to the cells and take away their wastes,” or, “The purpose of the carbon dioxide/oxygen cycle is to cycle the wastes of plants and animals into the necessary fuels for the other.” You won’t see anybody jumping up to say, “Woa, woa there–the circulatory system may move nutrients to the cells and wastes away, but the circulatory isn’t ‘for’ anything just as hurricanes aren’t ‘for’ destroying cities.” Nobody’s suggesting conscious intent necessarily. You can believe that there is conscious intent there, or not, as you prefer, but the system acts with an apparent goal in mind.
In the case of evolution, that apparent goal is clear: the creation of greater diversity. That complexity also develops as a function of that is a fringe benefit, but saying that evolution is primarily involved with driving complexity is akin to saying the the circulatory system is primarily set up to block arteries with build-up.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 February 2006 @ 7:08 PM
Although I agree that we often speak as if things that cannot be subjective have goals or purposes, this doesn’t make it so. In this kind of a discussion we need to be more accurate. Evolution does not have an intentional purpose or a goal. It does have a result, which is the creation of life forms. The fact that simple forms are more numerous than complex forms does not make them more important. I am speaking of importance to subjective beings like us, not to a personified process like evolution or a personified concept like a universe with a purpose.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 22 February 2006 @ 7:49 PM
Hey Bob –
So your conclusion is your premise.
Seriously, you can talk about the effectiveness of a system: ie evolution drives diversity drives evolution… of you can talk about how you FEEL about the system.
None of us can tell you that your feelings are wrong even as we seem to disagree. But at the same time, you can’t tell US that your feelings should be ours.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 22 February 2006 @ 8:11 PM
Jason:
I also value all life, but value conscious intelligent life more than simpler forms.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 22 February 2006 @ 8:40 PM
Janene:
I don’t think we have a problem with the workings of the system Forget the workings. You and Jason should be able to agree with me that the process of evolution is the source of new species. It’s not even this output of the system that we disagree about. We all know that the number of simple species greatly exceeds the number of complex ones that evolve.
Our disagreement is in our moral evaluation of the output. I consider the creation and existence of complex, intelligent life more important than the number of species. You are free to consider diversity your highest value and state that the purpose of evolution for YOU is diversity of species. You can even call it the purpose of evolution for YOU. This will not make your position true for others.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 22 February 2006 @ 9:09 PM
Humans have the potential for a particularly great diversity of *behaviour*. I take this to imply a particular degree of moral consideration for humans.
Comment by speedbird — 23 February 2006 @ 3:51 AM
Hey –
Well, see, that’s the problem here Bob.
I’m not MAKING morality judgements.
Just because you admittedly ARE talking about morality, does not mean you get to dismiss what I am saying as moralistic.
All I am talking about is what is neccessary to make the system work and what features make the system work better or worse (ie more effectively or less effectively).
Janene
Comment by Janene — 23 February 2006 @ 9:17 AM
Janene:
Its true there are no moral judgments about what is necessary to drive the system. However as I explained above about fire, all necessary components are equally important and diversity is not the only necessary component. To say that diversity is necessary for evolution is valid. To say that it is diversity that drives evolution implies that diversity is the most important requirement for evolution, which is not true.
Its when you say that creating a diversity of species is more important than creating more complex species that you are making a moral judgment. Saying that all life is of equal value is also a moral judgment.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 23 February 2006 @ 10:22 AM
Yes, but it’s a more, shall we say, “obvious” judgment than the alternative–that complex life is somehow more important. At any rate, the claim here is that evolution is a system that produces diversity first and foremost; that it creates complexity as a side-effect of that is incidental. Ergo, any process that generates complexity at the expense of overall diversity is counter to evolution.
It’s also counter to all the basic processes of the universe. So, as was discussed in thesis #1, if there is any kind of “will of G-d” expressed either by one or several deities, the will of a sentient pantheistic universe, or simply an apt anthropomorphized set of non-personal cosmic laws, any such system is a direct affront to it.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 February 2006 @ 10:35 AM
Jason:
Your claim is only supportable by your religious beliefs. I don’t subscribe to them. Since you intend to go beyond logic, this discussion becomes futile.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 23 February 2006 @ 2:03 PM
Consider the essential ingredient of evolution: energy. The more energy is input into the system, the more probable increasing complexity becomes. The solar energy accumulated for many millions of years made possible the most complex entity on the face of the earth - the human civilization in its present form. The overall complexity of the biosphere as a whole is increasing with time as a result of continual energy inputs, but this is only true if you consider the total complexity of human civilization as a part of biosphere.
Energy inputs create more niches for simple organisms to diversify, and also create enough disturbance for more complex organisms to form. As more complex organisms develop, they always have an option to change in the direction of decreasing complexity again. A parasite is compelled by energy considerations to become less complex than a free-living relative, but a parasite needs a very complex host which its free-living relative does not need.
And this is one of the ways that greater complexity leads to greater diversity.
Comment by _Gi — 23 February 2006 @ 2:06 PM
See thesis #1. This is no more a religious discussion than Kant, Locke or any other ethical philosopher. Every ethical philosophy ultimately rests on some kind of axiom that ultimately boils down to some form of, “the will of G-d.” That does not necessarily require the existence of any number of gods, but it does require the concept that there is some “purpose” the universe serves, whether the universe defines that purpose in terms of itself, or whether that purpose is assigned to it by some creator or creators. The origin of that purpose is irrelevant; what is important is to discern a fundamental axiom that we can start with.
Of course, lots of religions claim to communicate with one or more of these supposed creators, but we’re all familiar with the problems involved in that. Regardless of where that purpose comes from–from one god, many gods, or simply the cold, impersonal laws of physics and probability–there is only one place where it is indisputably expressed: the universe itself. Whatever one believes about the origins of the universe is irrelevant. If there is an emergent purpose that arises out of sheer probability, then that purpose is expressed in the universe itself. If it was all created by some number of creator deities, then the universe would be their work,and thus exhibit said purpose.
What we find, over and over again, is diversity. In physics, chemistry, biology and all their various subfields, we find the basic forces all push towards diversity. This was discussed in thesis #1. The only apparent “goal” the universe has ever pushed towards is greater diversity. Ergo, the only sensible axiom to start from is greater diversity. Everything else is so much wankery.
You go wrong with your first premise. Energy is not the essential ingredient of evolution. Memes exhibit a kind of evolution, but they do not necessarily require any energy at all. And, it is very easy (and very common) to have a great deal of energy, and no evolution whatsoever. The essential ingredient of evolution is descent with modification–not energy.
Complexity develops as a side-effect of greater diversty. Oftentimes, the two are compatible. The problem is when greater complexity is gained through the sacrifice of diversity. This is a problem, because while diversity is valuable, complexity is not, so we have lost something valuable, and in return gained something that isn’t. The overall exchange is profoundly negative.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 February 2006 @ 2:45 PM
Jason:
Your position posits a variation of Leibniz’s idea that this is “the best of all possible worlds� that was satirized by Voltair in ‘Candide’. What if this is not the best of all possible universes? Of course the enlightenment ethical philosophers posited the will of God. It would have been very dangerous for any that believed otherwise to publish.
I would have to accept a form of Pantheism to believe that the universe or the forces and processes in it (like evolution) have an intended purpose or goal. Purpose in this sense requires conscious intention. It also requires that I accept the concept of “Intelligent Design�. Neither an Atheist nor a Buddhist like myself could accept this.
Speaking secularly about diversity, as I mentioned before, diversity and uniformity are opposites. In order for carbon life to evolve and survive on this planet requires a particular range between them. Too much of either would prevent biological evolution and life itself. Cosmologists consider it remarkably fortunate for carbon life that this universe has enough homogeneity. The maximum endpoint of the diversity/uniformity scale is chaos.
I have read Thesis 1. I consider it to be fundamentally flawed. I’m sorry, I don’t have time right now to critique your ethical system.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 23 February 2006 @ 5:30 PM
“I’m sorry, I don’t have time right now to critique your ethical system.”
All my life I’ve been told that I’m a high-horsed, arrogant, condescending, holier-than-thou asshole.
After reading this statement, I feel vindicated - or at least outdone by several orders of magnitude.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 23 February 2006 @ 6:11 PM
Chuck:
I really don’t have time, at least tonight, to do this. My problems with Thesis 1 are fundamental. I’m sorry I can’t agree with Jason, but I don’t see how that merits your comment.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 23 February 2006 @ 6:32 PM
No, it’s really not. Whether or not this is the best possible universe, it is our universe, and the best we can ever hope to adopt as an ethical axiom is the apparent axiom of our universe itself. It has nothing to do with whether or not our universe is the best possible universe–it has to do with the fact that we will never come across a more solid, less subjective axiom than that.
Are you sure you read thesis #1? Because, as I discussed there, most of the ethical philosopgers tried very hard to make it atheist. For instance, Kant’s categorial imperative. There’s no proof for it–in fact, it’s rather non-sensical if you think about it–we’re just to take it on faith. As an axiom. As “the will of G-d,” in an atheist universe. Had nothing whatsoever to do with religious persecution; most of these were avowedly atheist attempts to construct an ethical system with no deities. But they fail, because all ethical systems must begin with some axiom. The axiom, by definition, cannot be proven. It must simply be accepted, like “the will of G-d.”
That’s where you go wrong. Purpose in no way implies intention. We discussed the circulatory system upthread. It has no intention, but it does have a purpose. When every system in the universe is pointed towards the same end–namely, here, diversity–then it doesn’t matter if the universe has a conscious intent or not. It obviously has a purpose.
Whether a line is drawn by an artist, or simply by a mathematical equation, the line is drawn, nonetheless. The distinction between intent and not is specious, since there is no entity that can be conclusively shown to have intent. After all, our “conscious intent” is merely the result of electro-chemical reactions in our brain, and try as we might, we cannot shake off the possibility that we really do live in a deterministic universe. “Free will”–required for your concept of conscious intent–remains, at best, a hypothesis, and at worst, an idle daydream.
As discussed upthread, however, maximal diversity will include some uniformity, as well, because that would create nested forms of diversity.
That would actually represent less diversity than we have now, as we already discussed at length upthread.
Thanks, Chuck.
I’m glad someone else said it….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 24 February 2006 @ 10:16 AM
Hey –
I found and read the article, Bob. Its a far cry from “…Big Bang theory as you explained it above (A singularity that exploded 13.7 years ago and includes all of reality) has not been considered likely by cosmologists since the acceptance of inflation.” Linde’s ideas are quite outside the mainstream, though certainly under consideration, and the ekpyrotic theory has no physical evidence and can’t until (and if) they get the LISA probe launched and functioning.
In any case, while I understand what Spergel is saying in the above quote, it is actually disingenious, in that time is a function of matter… so before the Big Bang, or the collision of branes, time would not exist. Branes without matter(even with ‘quantum matter’) would be timeless…
Janene
Comment by Janene — 28 February 2006 @ 10:44 AM
But isn’t the networks of relationships between these increasingly diverse forms of life, by nescessity and definition, grow increasingly more complex as well?
You say that humans seeing progress in evolution is anthropocentric myopia, but an increasing diversity of single celled organisms leads to an increasing complexity of relationships — especially when they live on, around and within increasingly complex mammals, reptiles, Republicans, etc.
Again, I’m probably missing something, any help appreciated.
Comment by Wombaticus Rex — 1 March 2006 @ 5:13 PM
Hey –
I’ve run into that one a lot, actually
There is a fundamental difference between simple things interacting to create complex results (like, say, the tropical rainforest oxygen and water cycles) and complex things following complex behaviors to create simple results(like, say, human societies developing metals, advancing technology destroying the rainforest and then spending lots of time, energy and materials on building oxygen-processing stations to recycle our atmosphere.)
Unfortuantely, I don’t know of any way, linguistically, to separate the two ‘types’ of compelxity. The first is robust, includes LOTS of redundancy and is VERY efficient. The second is very fragile, with little redundancy and LOTS of waste. The first ‘works’ the second, not so much.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 1 March 2006 @ 5:22 PM
That sounds absurd. Your “simple things interacting” and “complex things interacting” are purely relative — depends on what level of scale you’re looking at, and what level of scale you’re looking from.
Considering we haven’t found a bottom (base unit of creation) or top (external boundary) to the Universe, it’s a hard call to make. So by nescessity, we measure things relative to ourselves, “micro” and “macro” are boundaries we create relative to ourselves.
I think civilization is amazingly efficient at producing disease, war and famine. Viewing it as “inefficient” or “wasteful” is the same anthropocentrism Jason laments throughout these theses, isn’t it? Civilization is a winning proposition for viruses, microbes, parasites and scavengers. (And bushes, inexplicably.)
Comment by Wombaticus Rex — 3 March 2006 @ 1:05 AM
Sucks pretty well for them, too, I imagine. Pathogens are generally ill-adapted to their host and still trying to figure it out. All those zoonotics still don’t quite know what to do with us, but with generations measured in minutes, they’re learning the ropes a lot faster than we are. All the same, I don’t see any indication that worldwide bacteria population has really changed all that much, just that as more and more of the earth’s biomass is taken up with human flesh, a higher and higher percentage of the world’s bacterial population is finding its home in said flesh–however awkward the arrangement may be for the time being.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 3 March 2006 @ 1:20 AM
Hey –
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with scale. It has to do with energy expenditure.
Consider what we do to corpses. We drain the blood (which I’m sure has to be ’specially’ disposed of) pump it full of chemicals, put it in a box, filled with chemicals, and then bury it in the ground. All with the intent of preventing the natural, ‘complex’ recycling of scavengers, bug, microbes and plants. Eventually, all of these things we do fail, but in the process we expend LOTS of energy (complexity) on that corpse.
By comparison, in nature there are no waste products. In nature, every ‘waste product’ produced by any organism, is, in fact, a resource for another organism. The complex web of organisms that work together to break down dead and decaying matter is ‘complex’ in every sense of the word, but you NEVER see any organism ‘wasting’ energy to ‘deal with’ a waste product — you only see organisms spending energy to feed. And that’s the difference.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 3 March 2006 @ 9:44 AM
What about Eshel Ben-Jacobs work in “bacterial cybernetics”? Bacteria and microbes evolve — rapidly, intelligently and in sync — to take advantage of whatever food stuff is available. I’m sure you’re familiar with the vast array of microbes that “eat” all the industrial poisons you’re talking about.
More, importantly, how is this relevant to my question about complexity? I’m not asking in a “didactic asshole” fashion, I’m geniunely not seeing it.
Comment by Wombaticus Rex — 3 March 2006 @ 5:06 PM
Are you guys operating with the belief there is a “natural state of things” that humans are interrupting and destroying? Do you really see humanity as somehow separate from nature?
Comment by Wombaticus Rex — 3 March 2006 @ 5:09 PM
Hey –
No… ‘nature’ is a misnomer as ALL things are part of nature. But that does not change the fact that processes that ‘nature’ has evolved to accomplish are much more elegant (and therefore efficient) than ‘the best’ we hamans can come up with.
That being said, the question was : “But isn’t the networks of relationships between these increasingly diverse forms of life, by nescessity and definition, grow increasingly more complex as well?”
And yes, that involves a lot of complexity… but the complexity is of a different form than the complexity one finds in, say, civilization, which is the one things that we talk about a whole lot on this site.
Perhaps, now that I see your continuing questions, YOUR concern was different than I interpreted it to be.
If you are concerned primarily with biologics, and relationships between biologics, and how ‘complexity’ and ‘diversity’ interact on that level, then its a much different discussion than where I was going…
If that’s it, then I have a question for you… IF the relationships between organisms DO grow increasingly more complex, what effect, if any, does this have on the mechanisms of evolution? I don’t see any effect whatsoever, its more along the lines of ‘huh, yeah, that’s kinda interesting.’ Especially since it has been stated repeatedly that certainly evolution DOES create complexity, its just that this is a side effect rather than a driving force.
I dunno… maybe I should let you clarify what you’re looking for, cause I may still be shotting in the dark.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 3 March 2006 @ 5:18 PM
Uhhh… make that shooting in the dark
Janene
Comment by Janene — 3 March 2006 @ 5:18 PM
Janene:
“Bob, did you just tell me that I do not have a ‘holistic view of evolution’ because I don’t happen to AGREE with you that humans are better than other life?
Wow.
I, personally, value life itself over any particular lifeform, or class of life forms.
Holistically, from ‘outside’, diversity is of MUCH GREATER value TO evolution and TO life, itself, than complexity could ever be.â€?
Chuck and Jason seemed to feel I was being arrogant in an earlier post. I didn’t see why, but I do see how you might have felt that way in this case. I didn’t intend this arrogantly but possibly, because I didn’t explain my position well, it seemed that way to you. If so, I apologize.
You mentioned later about our confusion about things and ideas. This is what I was trying to refer to when I said you didn’t have a holistic view of evolution. As you know, evolution is a theory or a process that explains how natural forces and the environment interact with species to cause adaptation and form new species. To treat this abstraction as a thing is to make the error of reification as Gould explained in ‘Full House’ (I have now read it). Although we can speak of something being necessary for evolution, it is not reasonable to talk of something being of value TO evolution or of evolution having a purpose. (unless we posit Intentional Design). Evolution doesn’t care about anything; doesn’t have a purpose of its own; it’s just what happens under certain conditions.
We can look at the biosphere from the outside by pretending we are an extraterrestrial being (Gould suggested a Martian) and form a pseudo-objective evaluation of Earth’s biosphere as a system. Your outside observer could, as Gould does, consider the presence of all life and the sustainability of the biosphere itself as the most important features of Earth’s biosphere. In this case the diversity of simple life forms, especially bacteria would be the most interesting and important qualities of our biosphere. Because of her understanding of the process of evolution your observer would not consider complex intelligent life forms important for this purpose.
I, however, would choose an observer that was concerned more about intelligent life. He would also understand the process of evolution and know how rare and unlikely intelligent, self-conscious life forms are. As we both know, the loss of complex life forms would not affect the sustainability of the biosphere to a great extent, but intelligent life is not likely to reappear. My observer would consider the existence and sustainability of complex intelligent life and especially human life as the most important and fortunate qualities of this biosphere. Neither observer would be “wrong�, because both of these evaluations are actually our own subjective and not objective evaluations.
I don’t know how we can determine which cosmologists are in the “mainstream�. Linde has earned several prestigious prizes in physics lately. He is only one of a group of physicists at several of the world’s most influential universities that support one or more of a group of theories that posit a reality outside of our known universe. None of these theories, including those that posit this universe as all of reality, are close enough to being provable to be considered even likely. I understand that in physics time is usually defined as an aspect of this universe’s space-time. However even cosmologists that speak of events outside this universe use the term infinite time. My only point here is that neither Jason nor we can say that according to science there is no beginning to reality. I agree with you that, at least for now, this must remain a question for philosophy or religion.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 6 March 2006 @ 5:50 PM
I don’t think that follows at all. We speak of how sunlight is of value to photosynthesis, and how the purpose of photosynthesis is to provide energy for plants, but nobody is suggesting by that that photosynthesis was designed, or that it isn’t a purpose.
Language is a metaphor. Every word is a metaphor. Humans have a natural inclination for anthropomorphosis, and there are many things that are impossible to communicate without an anthropomorphological reference. That does not imply a literal belief that a thing (a process counts as a “thing”) is a person, but rather, is simply a limitation of human cognitive and communicative ability.
1. Define “intelligence.”
2. Provide an example of “intelligent life.”
I do not believe either of those are possible.
That’s perfectly fine, but understand that you’re positing an axiom.
The axiom I’ve suggested is, “Whatever everything in the universe is pushing towards, that’s the thing we should maximize.”
The axiom you’ve suggested is, “Things are ‘good’ insofar as they are like us.”
Neither one is proveable, because they’re both axioms, but I think yours is quite unreasonable.
Second, we’re not discussing what is “good” or what “good” evolution is. As you yourself said, such value judgments do not concern the process. Rather, as you have admitted, evolution produces a great deal of diversity. It produces very little complexity. Ergo, you have ceded my original point: Evolution creates diversity, not necessarily complexity. Evolution is a process that creates diversity, not necessarily complexity. Complexity is a side-effect of evolution at best.
It’s quite simple; it merely involves reading journals and following the arguments. The consensus is quite easy to pick up on.
Mavericks often do. My old professor, Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz, wins prizes all the time. He’s still a maverick, and his postulations often run quite counter to the consensus in his field. That doesn’t make him wrong, that makes him controversial–it also means that basing an argument on his findings is premature at the moment.
Fringe theories aren’t necessarily bad or wrong; they’re simply unproven. They often have a small following, too.
Sure we can. It’s based on the most solid evidence currently available. You’re certainly correct that there are alternative theories that say we’re wrong, but at the moment, they’re unproven.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 March 2006 @ 6:21 PM
Hey –
I think Jason already covered it all pretty thoroughly.. but one bit stuck out…
Some tiem back, I wrote:
Granted, we would not be having this discussion if we did not have some sort of intelligence and the tools to communicate… but the idea is not the thing. I’m talking about the idea and you keeping wanting to divert that onto the thing.
And now Bob replied:
Now I’m really confused…
Janene
Comment by Janene — 6 March 2006 @ 6:40 PM
Jason:
I doubt you will find a cosmologist that claims there is SOLID evidence that our known universe is the first and only one. However as this reduces to a philosophical issue we might as well talk about a chicken and an egg. We’re both free to pick our preference.
I don’t have your writing or rhetorical skill. I intend to respond to your earlier comments as I really think there is a problem with using evolution as an example to posit diversity as the “greatest good�. I will need more time to compose a hopefully logical and understandable response.
Janene:
I didn’t understand your statement, since I was talking about the process and not a “thing�. My point is that by taking about value TO evolution you were treating evolution as if it were a thing. You could have avoided that by talking about value to the biosphere, which is a thing, however, as I explained above, even that evaluation is affected by the interest of the consciousness evaluating it.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 6 March 2006 @ 8:21 PM
That is true, but there also isn’t any solid evidence otherwise, so Ockham’s Razor comes into play. There’s no solid evidence that the solar system isn’t an illusion created by mischevious, invisible gremlins, but we tend away from that theory, also. That’s because of Ockham’s Razor, or the non-multiplication of entities. If you have two explanations that fit the evidence equally well, one should prefer the explanation the invokes fewer entities, unless and until the evidence changes such that the “simpler” (where “simpler” is defined as “involving few entities”) explanation no longer is concordant with known evidence.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 March 2006 @ 8:32 PM
Jason:
This is getting silly, but I can also claim Occam’s razor. A theory that says there is no beginning is simpler than one that says there is, but then needs a cause for creation.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 6 March 2006 @ 8:53 PM
That’s why I went into such detail about Ockham’s Razor, because it’s so often characterized as preferring the “simplest explanation,” the same way that evolution is characterized as “survival of the fittest.” Both are generally correct, but very, very often taken the wrong way.
You can’t claim Ockham’s Razor. It requires another entity: a prior universe. Mine requires only the universe we live in. One entity vs. two. That’s why I’m citing the consensus position, and you’re citing an unproven fringe theory with only a small acceptance among cosmologists.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 March 2006 @ 9:23 PM
Jason:
Yours obtains its simplicity by describing only a part of the problem. If we were only concerned about the development of the known universe from the singularity, they both need only one part. If we are concerned about whether this is the only one, yours must explain its origin with no source for an external cause.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 6 March 2006 @ 10:00 PM
You’re doing it again. “Simplicity” is NOT the measure of Ockham’s Razor, the number of entities is. If the implications give you another problem to solve, that’s irrelevant to Ockham’s Razor.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 March 2006 @ 10:06 PM
In any case Occams’s Razor is not the measure of a theory’s validity.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 6 March 2006 @ 10:53 PM
YES IT IS!!!!
Comment by Jason Godesky — 6 March 2006 @ 10:58 PM
Miracle Of Birth Occurs For 83 Billionth Time
Comment by JCamasto — 6 March 2006 @ 11:29 PM
Jason:
“YES IT IS!!!!”
Strictly speaking Occam’s Razor doesn’t apply in this case. To comply with Occam’s Razor you should favor the simplest of two theories that make exactly the same predictions. To choose the simplest of two theories, like we are speaking of, with different predictions is to follow the “law of parsimony�. The law of parsimony should not be relied upon to make a decision.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 7 March 2006 @ 12:44 AM
Occam’s Razor: ‘No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary’.
Occam’s razor has two edges. Sometimes more things are absolutely necessary. Sometimes they aren’t.
I think the level that this thread has elevated / degenerated to is a sign that you’ve got an absolute hum-dinger of a thesis on your hands here, Mr. Godesky. I’m going to be pondering the difference between complexity and diversity for a good while yet.
Comment by speedbird — 7 March 2006 @ 6:17 AM
That is not what Ockham’s Razor is. I’ve explained what it is several times now, but you keep insisting on using some principle that isn’t Ockham’s Razor, and calling it Ockham’s Razor. You want to claim scientific validity for your stance, but you don’t want to be bothered with the scientific process. If you’re not even going to read my responses, there’s not much I can do.
Thanks.
Noticed that, huh?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 March 2006 @ 8:21 AM
Bob Said:
“In any case Occams’s Razor is not the measure of a theory’s validity.”
Jason Said:
“YES IT IS!!!!”
Jason,
You know, since you said it earlier, that Occam’s razor is a principle that we should prefer the explanation that posits fewer entities.
This is obviously a rule of thumb (indicated by “should” and “prefer”) about probabilities. Therefore, it is NOT a measure of logical validity. It is a rhetorical rule of thumb about likelihood.
JimFive
Comment by JimFive — 7 March 2006 @ 10:12 AM
No, it is not a “rule of thumb,” it is a principle of the scientific process. It’s not a logical argument, either. By the same token, repeatability and falsifiabilty are not logical arguments, either, but they are also not “rules of thumb.” They are principles of the scientific process.
You know that I do not believe that science is the only or even necessarily the best way of knowing, but science is science. Scientific thinking must comply with the scientific process–otherwise, it isn’t scientific thinking. Bob could easily assert that this is not the first universe–he just can’t misrepresent that assertion as scientific.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 March 2006 @ 10:20 AM
Unless it’s *absolutely necessary*, of course.
Comment by speedbird — 7 March 2006 @ 11:33 AM
When is it absolutely necessary to misrepresent unscientific opinions as scientific?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 March 2006 @ 11:35 AM
I mean: if the only way to explain the features of the observable universe is to posit a previous universe, then posit a previous universe. I can’t see how this could be, mind you. You’re up against Popper: how can it be a falsifiable (and hence scientific) proposition if it’s by definition not observable? If it’s observable, then it’s part of the Universe. Or are we redefining ‘universe’? Much thought required to go down that route.
I have similar problems with theories of ‘dark matter’. They all smell a bit like phlogiston.
Comment by speedbird — 7 March 2006 @ 11:44 AM
Oh, sure, that’s why I was sure to point out in one of the above explanations of what Ockham’s Razor is:
First, both explanations must fit the evidence. If that condition isn’t met, Ockham’s Razor never comes into play: you prefer the explanation that better fits the evidence.
If Bob’s theory were scientific, so would creationism and invisible gremlins.
I hear what you’re saying, but at least dark matter has gravitational anomolies in its favor.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 March 2006 @ 11:54 AM
Jason:
When you originally cited Occam’s Razor I assumed you were using it in the sense it’s often used to indicate what boils down to “keep it simpleâ€?. This was a valid assumption because, as I stated above, our two conclusions, that there is, or that there is not, a beginning to reality are not identical. This makes the use of Occam’s Razor in the strict sense as used in the scientific method invalid. When you stated you were using it in the strict sense, I pointed this out. Your response was to deny my statement and reiterate your own. I recommend you read this brief paper that appears on many academic web sites. What is Occam’s Razor? math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html
“You know that I do not believe that science is the only or even necessarily the best way of knowing, but science is science. Scientific thinking must comply with the scientific process–otherwise, it isn’t scientific thinking. Bob could easily assert that this is not the first universe–he just can’t misrepresent that assertion as scientific.â€?
I agree, but it is you, not I, that have asserted your conclusion to be scientific. As I have been stating repeatedly, at the present time, science is not able to choose between the two possibilities.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 7 March 2006 @ 7:31 PM
No, I wasn’t. The first mention of Ockham’s Razor on this page is from me, where I specifically disavowed that usage:
You said:
Ockham’s Razor is only applicable when two explanations are different. If our explanations were identical, then Ockham’s Razor would be invalid.
That’s almost verbatim what I said!
What?
I’m done. You’re not even bothering to read what I write. You keep pretending to understand what science is, what Ockham’s Razor is, and many other things, but you very obviously don’t. You just as obviously have no interest in changing that situation, so what else can be done? This last message contradicts itself, the meaning of the words it uses, and the documented course of this discussion so consistently that I can’t make anything out of it but an inconsistent babble. You don’t understand anything that you’re talking about, and you have no interest in understanding what you’re talking about–you’re just interested in being “right,” but G-d only knows what you expect to be “right” about. The value of this discussion is quickly approaching zero.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 March 2006 @ 8:36 AM
Jason:
I said:
You said:
Who isn’t reading? This is a straw argument as I spoke of identical conclusions, not explanations.
I said:
Your reply:
Did you read it? Here are three passages from that paper:
And
And
“The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific method. It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion.�
This is what I said, but NOT what you have been saying. I interpret the above passages to mean that if there were two theories that posited that our known universe is all of reality that the simpler one, with the least elements (if you insist) would more likely be correct. However it would not be a valid application of Occam’s Razor to compare one that posited a greater reality with one that did not.
You could have shown how my interpretation of this paper was wrong. You could have shown how the authors (Sugihara Hiroshi and Phil Gibbs) were wrong. But to be credible you would have to have a better reason than “Jason says so�. You chose instead to insinuate that I am a fool. I think that reflects more on you than myself.
I do not have more than a layman’s knowledge of science and have never claimed such. I am however a critical and skeptical thinker and check various sources before accepting new knowledge. I don’t consider you the ultimate source of scientific knowledge.
We are getting nowhere with this discussion. I feel justified in maintaining that science is not at this time able to resolve this question. I can’t stop you from claiming that “there must be a beginning� is a scientific statement.
We began this silly thread discussing the question of “which was first, diversity or evolution�. Diversity is an abstract noun meaning the quality or state of being diverse. It is not meaningful unless it is stated or understood what set of things is being described. If we accept your understanding of the big bang, the diversity of everything began as soon as the expansion. Since you don’t believe the universe is self-propagating, evolution could not happen and is not relevant until self-replicating entities existed.
If we want to discuss whether diversity of species or evolution began first. The answer is simultaneously. Both began when the first life form made a survivable copy with errors.
When you say evolution is the result of diversity, do you mean diversity of alleles? I explained up-thread that the quality of diversity is the opposite of uniformity. In this reality neither can be absolute. More of one means less of the other. For evolution to occur alleles must have considerable uniformity and occasional diversity. If you are speaking of species, they must have enough uniformity to be a species and enough diversity for adaptation and occasional speciation. In both cases evolution could not occur without the proper range of variation. There are many other necessary qualities of life forms and their enviroments that are necessary for the process we call evolution to occur. How can you pick out diversity as the primary requirement?
Comment by Bob Harrison — 20 March 2006 @ 6:47 PM
Hey –
Bob, you are conflating ‘predictions’ with conclusions.
The multi-verse theory offers NO predictions that have been substantiated, to separate it from the traditional big bang model. IF they complete the LISA probe and turn up new evidence to support the theory, then Occum’s razor will become irrelevant to the discussion.
Recall (from your link):
Ernst Mach: “Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses.”
So, all of the theorizing about any action before the Big Bang falls soundly within ‘not percieved by the sense’ — because BY DEFINITION it cannot be measured or percieved. It can only be THEORIZED. Just like Lorentz’s ether (from the article)
This IS exactly what Jason has been saying, all along…
YES IT WOULD. If the observable/testable predictions are identical. Which they are. End of story. IF this changes, then the issue will need to be readdressed.
Comment by Janene — 21 March 2006 @ 9:56 AM
Janene:
I can’t tell whether you are really confused or are being intentionally confusing because of your determination to support Jason’s position.
I quoted:
In the example in the article which complied with this statement ‘the exactly the same predictions’ which Einstein and Lorentz’s theories had in common were that they both predicted the accuracy of the same equations. I may have erred by using the word conclusions in this sense. A more accurate description of what must be identical is “the phenomenon to be explained by the theories�. Lorentz’s ether was not eliminated because it couldn’t be perceived, but because it wasn’t necessary with Einstein’s theory.
The “traditional� big bang theory predicts that this known universe expanded from a singularity. It says nothing about where that singularity came from or whether there ever were or will be others outside of our universe. Multiverse and cyclic theories incorporate the big bang but also predict other universes. Although Occam’s razor as defined above might apply to conflicting multiverse theories, it doesn’t for comparing the big bang to a theory with different predictions.
You quote from the article:
But you didn’t explain that according to the article this was a variation by Mach, which he called the Principle of Economy and used to state that molecules don’t exist. It is not the most useful statement of the principle for scientists.
As I understand it, Jason’s position is that according to Occam’s razor, as it is used in the scientific method, it is a scientifically supported statement to assert that the big bang was the beginning of all reality. My position is that since science has no evidence one way or the other, the question of whether or not there is a beginning to the total reality cannot be answered by science at this time and remains a philosophical question. Which position is correct is in no way dependent on multiverse or cyclic theories as we agree they are not testable at this time. The correct position can be determined only by our interpretation of Occam’s razor. Jason would be correct according to Mach’s Principle of Economy however, according to this article, this is not the most useful interpretation for scientists.
Having read more about Occam’s razor I now realize there are multiple variations that are used in many disciplines for different purposes. I’ve lost my interest in this subject and have only continued this far because, by the tone of yours and Jason’s replies, I have felt the need to show that I am not stupid.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 22 March 2006 @ 5:23 PM
And yet, each additional word you write to that effect only makes you look worse.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 March 2006 @ 5:59 PM
Its amazing the extent you will go in order not to admit you are WRONG !!!
Comment by Bob Harrison — 22 March 2006 @ 7:13 PM
When I am, I admit it freely.
When I’m not, I don’t.
When I’m contending with a self-righteous fool who doesn’t even read my responses, I stop putting forth the effort.
As Lincoln said, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” No one who reads the foregoing will have any doubt.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 March 2006 @ 9:26 PM
Oh dear. Is this still going on? I would have figured you two would have put it together by now. The answer is, of course, that you’re running around in circles and both look quite silly. Might I suggest a recess? Maybe after Midsummer this discussion will be more productive. Although you have succeeded in amusing me, which I do appreciate. So, thank you.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 23 March 2006 @ 1:05 AM
Thank u all. Have enjoyed yr conversation (in a way), and encountered some nice new words; particularly liked cosmofutibility, and diversidepression. Is it not now time to discuss how many angels might dance on the head of a pin; and where the angelic orchestra sits?
Fisheye.
Comment by E.J.Burgess. — 2 May 2006 @ 10:05 AM
There is an interesting convergence among a number of us who have been thinking about the foundations of ethical philosophy in the context of sustainability. I’m not going to digress the topic by promoting my version of it here, except to say it’s surprisingly close to Jason’s in certain areas.
Re. free will, which Jason says “-remains, at best, a hypothesis, and at worst, an idle daydream.” Cognitive science is moving toward understanding the physical basis of what we call free will. Check out the papers by Hameroff & Penrose on “Orchestrated objective reduction” (abbreviated “Orch-OR”) at Hameroff’s site at U.Ariz. consciousness studies dept. In summary they say, with good evidence from neuroanatomy to back them up, that the existence of borderline-quantum-scale structures in the neurons, plus the existence of “noisy neurons” whose output firing is random with respect to input (i.e. regardless of input), support the conclusion that nondeterministic processes play a role in cognition. One can argue whether quantum noise, whether in the brain or in nonliving systems, is truly evidence of a nondeterministic universe as a whole. But if we accept that it is, even in part, then Hameroff’s & Penrose’s theory provides the entry point for free will in the system.
I would also argue that a fine balance between deterministic and nondeterministic processes is as essential to the existence of our universe, and life within it, as the other cosmological constants. That is, even a slight variation in either direction, would have produced a radically different set of outcomes that, at very least, would not have been hospitable to life as we know it. (This is not by way of supporting the “anthropic principle” or its implication of purposive creation; it is causal rather than teleological.)
OK, another of my too-long postings:-) Is anyone still reading these comments?
Comment by gg3 — 27 January 2007 @ 11:35 PM
Having read through the rest of the comments here:
Regardless of hair-splitting, this entire topic should stand as disproof of the criticism that neo-primitives or those who embrace the HG path are in any way obscurantist or anti-scientific!
One could practically envision an editorial cartoon showing a bunch of people sitting around a campfire, in a setting that looks like an ancient Native American village or encampment, having a conversation about theoretical physics including plenty of math!:-)
More seriously, one could envision a largely HG culture that supports industrial technologies only to the extent that they are used for scientific research (for example, space telescopes, electron microscopes, particle accelerators, MRIs, etc. but no consumer-lifestyle garbage). One could also envision an HG culture that applies scienfitic methodology with as much or greater rigor than present socieities, but does not use high tech of any kind. Either of those would be a far different world, and would make an interesting piece of speculative fiction to work out the implications.
–
Re. “fringe” theories. The entire body of work on this site, as far as I can tell, would be considered fringe, but the very idea of “fringe” vs. “mainstream” is an arbitrary construct that is self-serving to the interests of power. Scientific truths have nothing to do with authority or majority, and everything to do with theoretical consistency and empirical validation. In cosmology one runs up against a fundamental problem for empiricism, as it appears to be impossible to obtain final empirical evidence one way or another about certain fundamental questions such as the existence of multiple universes or the issue of the beginning (if any) of time. At that point we do end up with purely theoretical statements that are more of the nature of philosophy, though not necessarily with religion (if one makes the distinction that religion is concerned primarily with deity, thanatology, and ethics derived therefrom). There’s nothing wrong with that as long as we explicate our assumptions & premises and the types of logical systems we are using.
Comment by gg3 — 28 January 2007 @ 12:15 AM
In your good article you write about the “myth of progress” which I deal with in my blog. A buzz-word I think often is used to fuse “evolution” and “progress” is “innovation”. This word is a favored news-speak for one tracking science in increasingly more complex direction. Writing that, I find your overall description of evolution as a result of diversity, very similar to the general science conditions, yet functioning as a smaller mirror of the larger picture.
The reason I write this is because in science I see I an increased race for complexity, driven by ear-marked funding by non-scientists. Today we bridge huge gaps in knowledge in many sciences by racing skills and methods to the molecular or nano-level. As a result the simplest things such a gross pathology of the most common animals has to be ignored. Still we develop highly specialized vaccines for the animals we know little about. Several colleagues of mine, and myself, has expressed concern that these branches of technology will eventually break or result in a relapse to building more solid foundations. Rather than jumping and become easy targets for the mechanisms of natural selection.
Comment by Brian Lassen — 17 February 2008 @ 5:47 AM