Re: Time without end: Physics and Biology in an Open Universe

From: Michael Ragland (ragland66_at_webtv.net)
Date: 10/27/04 

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:25:44 +0000 (UTC)

In article <clh819$j6l$1@darwin.ediacara.org>, ragland66@webtv.net
(Michael Ragland) wrote:
P.S. I thought I was alone in my belief intelligent life could modify
the physical laws of the universe for its own purposes. Many may
strongly disagree with Freeman Dyson but I don't think anybody would
justifiably consider him a crackpot.
*
Nowhere in Dyson's long piece do I find anything about intelligent life
changing the physical laws of the universe. In fact the whole bit is
prefaced on the fact that the laws are constant.
earle.

Yes, you're right. I conceded that to Maurice Barnhill. I think part of
my problem was the blending of Dyson's philosophical speculations with
his mathematical equations based on "our" observations. In addition I'm
unclear whether Dyson's belief in infinite "intelligent" life is based
strictly on an open system universe, a closed system universe or
something else.

Also, part of the problem may be linguistic semantics. When you don't
understand physics equations and even if you read in part that such a
theory follows physical laws or constants you are somewhat thrown when
Dyson states, "I think I have shown that there are good scientific
reasons for taking seriously the possibility that life and intelligence
can succeed in molding this universe of ours to their own purposes." Or,
when he states, "It is impossible to calculate in detail the long-range
future of the universe without including the effects of life and
intelligence. It is impossible to calculate the capabilities of life and
intelligence without touching, at least peripherally, philosophical
questions. If we are to examine how intelligent life may be able to
guide the physical development of the universe for its own purposes, we
cannot altogether avoid considering what the values and purposes of
intelligent life may be."

Now I look up the definition of "mould" because when I read it that
implied modifying the physical laws or constants of the universe. What I
got from my American Heritage Dictionary was: (1) A form or matrix for
shaping a fluid or plastic substance. (2) A frame or model around on
which something is formed or shaped. (3) Something that is made in or
shaped in a mold. (4) The pattern of a mold. (5) General shape or form;
the oval mold of her face. (6) Distinctive shape, character, or type; in
the mold of his ancestors. (7) Architecture; an embellishment in strip
form used to decore a surface. (8) To form in a desired shape. (9) To
guide or determine the growth and development of; influence. There are a
few more but that is enough.

Dyson states in the paper, "It is impossible to calculate the
capabilitiies of life and intelligence without touching, at least
peripherally, philosophical questions. If we are to examine how
"intelligent life" may be able to "guide the physical development of the
universe, we cannot altogether avoid considering what the values and
purposes of intelligent life may be."
I looked up "guide" at the definition was general: To show the way to;
to conduct; lead; direct. (2) To direct the course of; to steer; guide a
plank through a saw. (3) To manage the affairs of; govern. (4) To
influence the conducts or opinions of; to be a criterion or motive of.

In terms of mold I see only two possible definitions Dyson intended in
applying theoretically to infinite life in the universe. One is: (1) A
form or matrix for shaping a fluid or plastic substance. In this
instance I would rephrase the definition to read, "A form or matrix for
shaping the universe." The second definition (which I happen to think is
the one Dyson intended is): (9) To guide or determine the growth and
development of; influence.

But Dyson was very careful in his philosophical wording and he didn't
use the word "influence" which denotes having "power" over something
else but "guide" which is such a general word it means everything and
nothing. It doesn't get into specifics. Neither does the word
"influence" but it is more specific in the sense it tells us something
is not just conducting or controlling something but that it has "power
over something else".

I guess to Dyson possibly "guiding the development of the universe"
doesn't necessarily entail "influencing" the physical known laws of the
universe or if does influence them it does it in a way which doesn't
violate the physical laws or constants of the universe.

As a scientist I don't see how Dyson could arrive at any other position.
As Hawking stated, "The fact that we exist shows that there must be a
solution to the anthropic constraints." Yes, but that won't occur for a
very long time.

Dyson states, "If we are to examine how intelligent life may be able to
guide the physical development of the universe for its own purposes, we
cannot altogether avoid considering what the values and purposes of
intelligent life may be." Just out of curiousity does Dyson do that in
his paper? My guess is it is impossible for him to do so without
invoking the anthropic principle. And since this must be the case I
would consider quite futile to consider what the values and purposes of
at least some possible "intelligent" life forms may be. In other words,
I'm considering the possibility of extraterrestrial life outside the
current constants of the anthropic principle. (roar of sneering contempt
and laughter behind computer screens).

I'm totally open to the idea of their being other carbon based
extraterrestrial life forms in the universe. I just happen to think
there is room for the possibility of other extraterrestrial life forms
not based on carbon. Although so far by our scientific observations life
is rare nevertheless we can't even see the entire universe and it is
still enlarging. We don't even understand what most of the universe is
made out of. We haven't come up with quantum gravity yet. Have we? We
haven't reconciled Einstein's Theory of General and Special Relativity
with quantum mechanics yet have we? Is it accurate to state generally
Einstein addressed the macroscopic properties of the universe while
quantum mechanics addresses the microscopic? Or is this a probable
falsehood? If so, how are the macroscopic and microscopic properties of
the reconciled with each other? If so, this is a problem not only
applying to the universe but to our biology.

As I explained to Maurice Barnhill I am confused over whether Dyson sees
infinite life in an open system universe, a closed universe or something
else. It appears Dyson sees an open universe and not a closed system
universe. Yet, from many whom I've read, including biologist Guy
Hoelzer, the universe most likely is a closed system due to entropy or
the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Even Hawking believes the universe will ultimately recollapse and there
will be an increase in entropy. And I've read in several places the view
that in such an event "intelligent life" as we know it would be
extinguished. I don't know if that is true. Current observations of
course say the universe is expanding and will continue to expand but
when taking into effect entropy or the Second Law of Thermodynamics the
evidence is the universe will collapse and the arrow of time will not
reverse itself.

If this is true how could such possible extraterrestrial life survive
such an event? This is where Dyson's reference to the possible values
and purposes of extraterrestrial life enticed me. I'm still tied to the
anthropic principle in stating this but I believe one of the values and
purposes of extraterrestrial intelligent life in the universe is to
"survive". In humans this is done by Darwinian evolution which
unfortunately poses just as much a threat to our survivability as a
species as it does to preserve it. But that is another thread and one
I've repeated several times.

Other forms of possible extraterrestrial life forms may have other means
of survival than Darwinian evolution. They have to or they wouldn't
exist. Get the joke? ROFLMAO. It could be electrical, biomechanical,
nano, etc. the possibilities are probably endless. But whatever forms
such possible extraterrestrial life took it would have to be able to
reproduce some how and one would assume there would be some program for
survival. In human evolution that program of survival has largely been
aggressive instincts which now threaten the species with destruction. In
other possible extraterrestrial advanced life forms the program for
survival may be based on intelligence rather than biological instincts.

This is all very philosophical or as Guy Hoelzer would say metaphysical.
But I hope my musings are of more interest than astrology although to
the average scientist probably not. Let's assume, however, for the sake
of argument the universe will ultimately collapse in billions of years
and the arrow of time will not reverse itself and intelligent life as we
know it will be extinguished. This is based on the premise (a) there
will be a "Big Crunch" and (b) that intelligent life as we know it will
be extinguished. I'm pretty sure most physicists agree on the (a). As
far as (b) is concerned I think for many scientists it is not even
relevant since no other intelligent life has been discovered in the
universe or there may be scientists who believe humans are the only life
form in the universe. But assuming there is other advanced
extraterrestrial life forms in the universe could they survive the
collapse of the universe?

I will argue this is impossible to answer. Why? First, human knowledge
of the universe and its laws or constants is IMHO limited. This does not
mean such laws or constants aren't valid just that they are limited. We
don't know everything although some of us like to think we do.

Second, it will take billions of years for the universe to collapse. At
this moment there may be advanced extraterrestrial life forms in the
universe aware the universe will collapse and that this poses a threat
to their continued survival and they are "working on this problem" to
solve it. To me this is my definition of a life form truly trying to
figure out a way to survive billions of years before its projected
death. Obviously, such an advanced extraterrestrial life form would have
to have almost more limitless knowledge of the physical universe than us
and be extremely technologically advanced. When I say extremely
technologically advanced I mean like 10 billion light years ahead of us.

This is a completely philosophical belief but I believe it is possible
other advanced extraterrestrial life forms in the universe could change
the laws of the universe and mould it to their own values and purposes.
I don't see how merely "guiding" or "moulding" the physical development
of the universe with mathmatical equations based on our current
observations of the universe would enable extraterrestrial life (as well
as our possible own) to survive a collapse of the universe (by that time
we will no longer be on earth (I think earth will be supernova and we
will have evolved into something else). If Dyson or someone else has
proven beyond the shadow of a doubt life would survive the collapse of
the universe then please show me since I will have wasted so much time
writing this post. Of course, this is assuming there is a collapse of
the universe which is what I assume.

I admit that part of the reason I'm interested in this is because of the
fear of dying. Not me personally dying. As Einstein once said death is
the silliest thing to be afraid of because there is nothing afterwards
(paraphrasing him). I'm afraid of life dying in the universe and being
extinguished in a "Big Crunch". There is the part of me that says be
realistic. One cannot predict what will happen in billions of years
before the universe possibly collapses. What is there which we don't
know? Alot, yes? And we don't know how many possible extraterrestrial
life forms there are in the universe and how many are extremely
technologically advanced. Some planets may have life on them even more
primitive than us. Some may be different from us but haven't managed to
space travel yet. And some may be so advanced we would appear as an
amoeba to them.

I wish I could understand Dyson's mathematical equations based on our
observations that theoretically infinite life is possible in the
universe. The title of the paper was I believe something like "Physics
and Biology in an Open Universe". From that I'm assuming he doesn't
believe the universe is a closed system. Am I wrong? If the universe is
a closed system as apparently dictated by entropy and the Second Law of
thermodynamics (and apparently many physicists believe this) then does
this result in the death of "intelligent" life in the universe? If it
does than is Dyson's argument shot to ***?

I've assumed there will be a collapse of the universe and entropy will
increase and that unless possible extraterrestrial life forms (possibly
including us) are able to learn more about the physical nature of the
universe and modify them (because I don't see how just guiding and
moulding is going to prevent or mitigate the "Big Crunch") this could
result in the extinguishing of life (at least in this universe).

Michael Ragland

"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value.
Bacteria do quite well without it."

Stephen Hawking