Does the entire universe have a survival instinct?

[baywax]

Does the entire universe have a survival "instinct"?

My proof that there is some mechanism at play in the universe... similar to our genetic coding for the "survival instinct" is that the universe has lasted as long as it has... ie: 13.5 billion years. It has not collapsed or discontinued in anyway... it continues as we speak. What are the fail safes or what is the mechanism keeping the universe together, operating and evolving as it is now and has for so long?

 

[Math Is Hard]

What sort of mechanisms destroy or threaten universes? "Collapse" and "discontinuation" are not predators. To make a natural selection "survival instinct" analogy seems like apples and oranges.

 

[JaredJames]

A 'survival instinct' implies the universe is 'looking out for itself'. That if at some point something occurred which threatened the existence of the universe, the universe would take action to prevent it. This is not so, there is no evidence to back up this hypothesis.

Why would the universe collapse or discontinue? If something has never occurred (or could never occur) to generate such an event then there is no reason it should have happened. This does not imply a defence mechanism on the part of the universe.

Long life does not indicate a survival instinct and certainly doesn't indicate any mechanism for 'protecting itself'.
A computer code (let's say incrementing a counter by 1 each second) can run continuously but it won't defend itself. The code is not 'alive', it won't detect a threat and as such cannot do anything about something out to destroy it. The code can do nothing about a power cut.

What you have said there is no different to me saying I have lived a long life (100 years) and so that clearly means I have a survival instinct - despite the fact that I've been on a life support machine for the last 50 years.

 

[ZapperZ]

Does the entire universe have a survival "instinct"?

My proof that there is some mechanism at play in the universe... similar to our genetic coding for the "survival instinct" is that the universe has lasted as long as it has... ie: 13.5 billion years. It has not collapsed or discontinued in anyway... it continues as we speak. What are the fail safes or what is the mechanism keeping the universe together, operating and evolving as it is now and has for so long?

You need to reexamine your logic. "Long Life" is your proof for the existence of "survival instinct"? If this is so, you need to show the cut-off period of time when a "short life" is your "proof" of no survival instinct.

Zz.

 

[baywax]

What sort of mechanisms destroy or threaten universes? "Collapse" and "discontinuation" are not predators. To make a natural selection "survival instinct" analogy seems like apples and oranges.

Yes, I'm sorry if I've put an analogy forth here and what I'm really trying to find out is what is the mechanism that as allowed the universe to exist as long as it has?

Is it the fact that to begin with there were very few set physical laws and so the laws "evolved" through trial and error, thus, after so many billion years the laws were practically fool proof? I mean if you look at it... the universe... is enormous in relation to us and it is well ordered and predictable to a degree... at least what we can observe of it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pushing "intelligent design" or any other such nonsense... I'm actually just trying to find out if there's a connection to the "survivability" of the universe to the genetic code for the survival instinct... sort of... like... is it "universal", as it were? There does seem to be a propensity for preservation... conservation and continuation whether it be of life, a species, a sun, a galaxy and/or the entire universe.

 

[JaredJames]

Are you trying to say gravity 'evolved' over time to become what we have today?

This is plain ridiculous.

You are yet to explain what could 'wipe out' the entire universe? You haven't given a solid reason for there to be a need for a survival instinct.

Age, is not a valid reason.

 

[baywax]

Are you trying to say gravity 'evolved' over time to become what we have today?

This is plain ridiculous.

You are yet to explain what could 'wipe out' the entire universe? You haven't given a solid reason for there to be a need for a survival instinct.

Age, is not a valid reason.

Gravity must have evolved over time to become what we have today... unless you're telling me there was gravity before there was matter.

This is what I'm asking... there's this sequence of events that have occurred that have resulted in a stable system... namely a universe. And its stable. It doesn't fall apart. It doesn't explode in our faces... and if it did this would simply be another trial... and error that came before a stabler system...

is all of this not amazing to anyone? Or puzzling...? If not... please delete this topic. Thank you.

 

[JaredJames]

Gravity must have evolved over time to become what we have today... unless you're telling me there was gravity before there was matter.

Gravity occurs because of matter. That doesn't mean it evolved.

Once you have matter, you have gravity. You could argue matter evolved (that's evolved in the developed sense, not biological), but we didn't get matter without gravity and then gravity appeared shortly after as the universe 'balanced out'.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, I'm sorry if I've put an analogy forth here and what I'm really trying to find out is what is the mechanism that as allowed the universe to exist as long as it has?

Is it the fact that to begin with there were very few set physical laws and so the laws "evolved" through trial and error, thus, after so many billion years the laws were practically fool proof? I mean if you look at it... the universe... is enormous in relation to us and it is well ordered and predictable to a degree... at least what we can observe of it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pushing "intelligent design" or any other such nonsense... I'm actually just trying to find out if there's a connection to the "survivability" of the universe to the genetic code for the survival instinct... sort of... like... is it "universal", as it were? There does seem to be a propensity for preservation... conservation and continuation whether it be of life, a species, a sun, a galaxy and/or the entire universe.

And this is a "philosophical" issue rather than a physical issue? Very strange!

Zz.

 

[apeiron]

This is what I'm asking... there's this sequence of events that have occurred that have resulted in a stable system... namely a universe. And its stable. It doesn't fall apart. It doesn't explode in our faces... and if it did this would simply be another trial... and error that came before a stabler system...

is all of this not amazing to anyone? Or puzzling...? If not... please delete this topic. Thank you.

It is certainly a good question but analogies with genetics and instincts look like heading down the wrong track.

A purely physical approach to this kind of stable development is the literature on self organisation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization.

The difference is that the system embodies its organisation. Genes (and instincts) suggest a mechanism which stands outside what it controls. Which for a universe would be a mystery. How could a universe have this kind of information standing outside its operation?

But self-organisation is simply a tale of self-constraint. Organisation is the very fabric of what exists. That is all there is.

So self-organisation is a theory about stability that does not require outside controlling forces.

 

[baywax]

And this is a "philosophical" issue rather than a physical issue? Very strange!

Zz.

If philosophy is not physical what is it?

 

[baywax]

It is certainly a good question but analogies with genetics and instincts look like heading down the wrong track.

A purely physical approach to this kind of stable development is the literature on self organisation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization.

The difference is that the system embodies its organisation. Genes (and instincts) suggest a mechanism which stands outside what it controls. Which for a universe would be a mystery. How could a universe have this kind of information standing outside its operation?

But self-organisation is simply a tale of self-constraint. Organisation is the very fabric of what exists. That is all there is.

So self-organisation is a theory about stability that does not require outside controlling forces.

Thank you apeiron. When we look at some of the systems in the universe like how water freezes, vaporizes, is a liquid or can be somewhere in between... like "slush" this is a system that is controlled by outside forces ie: temperatures. Yet water maintains its organized state as H2O. The bond is forceful enough between the hydrogen and oxygen to hold together through all of these states. Here we could call water "self organized" but there must have been a time when hydrogen and oxygen were not bonded and a time when they somehow began to bond on a regular basis. I think its Orion 1 who suggested by calculation the earliest form of water would have been around 4 billion years after the big bang.

There are origins like this for every physical law and element etc... in the universe. And I agree that every system in the universe and the universe as a whole is self-organized... as would be a delta at the end of a river's course.

However, the forces that shaped the first VRNA or RNA or DNA have formed nothing any different than a bond between hydrogen and oxygen. And how that VRNA, RNA or DNA performs is no different than how water performs under certain conditions such as temperature etc. So, this is why I'm drawing a connection between these systems... they're all a part of the same big "organization".

Now I know this gets into the "what the bleep" stuff and I don't want to go there. In fact it was ZAPPER Z that helped me understand the difference between the microcosm and the macrocosm and emergent properties and phenomena. These explanations ring true for me in that you can't use analogies of one to describe the other.

 

[ZapperZ]

If philosophy is not physical what is it?

So you would also ask, say, finding the Clebsh-Gordon coefficient for 3 spin 1/2 particles, also in the Philosophy forum? Get Real!

Zz.

 

[Maui]

What are the fail safes or what is the mechanism keeping the universe together, operating and evolving as it is now and has for so long?

Gravity, dark matter and energy, Newton's laws of motion, all the physical laws and constants, etc.

This could easily become more speculative than is appropriate for the other forums, once someone introduces qm into the topic, as the universe is not classically materialistic, but merely appears so and appearances are deceptive.

 

[baywax]

So you would also ask, say, finding the Clebsh-Gordon coefficient for 3 spin 1/2 particles, also in the Philosophy forum? Get Real!

Zz.

Now that you've posted this problem in the philosophy forum... I imagine its become a philosophical item... something to do with Quantum Geometry and speculations that relate to that topic. Philosophy is as philosophy does.

 

[baywax]

Gravity, dark matter and energy, Newton's laws of motion, all the physical laws and constants, etc.

This could easily become more speculative than is appropriate for the other forums, once someone introduces qm into the topic, as the universe is not classically materialistic, but merely appears so and appearances are deceptive.

In my experience, appearances are only deceptive if you let them be as such. If you can look closer, clearer and with more understanding about the "appearance", you begin to see the true nature of the image or problem. For instance, you can mistake a stump for a bear... your physiology will react as though you seen a bear ie: heart rate rises, flight response kicks in and so on. But, if you are able to stay calm and collected and take another look or listen to the stump... you are likely to find out the truth behind the deception.

And I believe the term deception and or illusion is misleading when it really should be thought of as a "mistaken perception".

However, as biological units that depend on heat, food and water to survive... along with avoiding or killing predators... our "mistaken perception" of the physical nature of the universe is what keeps us alive. We perceive events as taking place in sequence, we perceive collections of atoms as solids and liquids and so on and so forth in our attempt to remain "living" biological units.

 

[baywax]

Gravity occurs because of matter. That doesn't mean it evolved.

Once you have matter, you have gravity. You could argue matter evolved (that's evolved in the developed sense, not biological), but we didn't get matter without gravity and then gravity appeared shortly after as the universe 'balanced out'.

The word "evolved" has always been used to describe physical events, even before it was applied to biological/genetic adaptation. Developed wasn't used as much because it implies deliberate manipulation.

How something comes into being is part of its evolution. Whether or not gravity began at the same time as matter or not is irrelevant to my queries... the fact that matter and gravity are interdependent in nature means there was a time before matter formed where gravity did not exist. In order for it to exist, it needed matter to be formed... this was the sequence and this is the description of the evolution of gravity (and, concurrently, matter).

Gravity appears to be a fundamental part of the evolution of the universe. Once established, many other laws and states could continue to evolve through trial and error and establish a system that doesn't implode or explode in our faces.

I'd like to address the statement that says (paraphrased) "long life doesn't suggest a propensity toward survival"... then they said something like " the universe didn't have to adapt to predators... etc..."

Hello!?

There are pleanty of species on Earth that have evolved without predators. And the species are still around for us to observe. Their species have lasted billions of years.. for example: algae. They continued to evolve, mind you, because the weather changes or because other conditions forced changes to their behaviour and to their physique. No predators. Just a changing environment.

Now, without relying too heavily on analogy or metaphor, the universe has no predator... unless you consider its own expansion as a hell ride to its death, but, it has evolved and laws and states and conditions etc... have been the result of its evolution. I know its not biological... for the most part... and its got no genes so we can't do an epigenetic study on its make up. But, it has survived! How has it done this so efficiently? Is it "Self-Organization"? Is it a directive from a previous universe? These are my philosophical questions... no right answers... just exploration... with no reference to deities or guys with a big beard and a bunch of winged babies, please.

Ps. jarednjames... hopefully not as "plain ridiculous" as you thought earlier...

 

[ZapperZ]

Now that you've posted this problem in the philosophy forum... I imagine its become a philosophical item... something to do with Quantum Geometry and speculations that relate to that topic. Philosophy is as philosophy does.

Then you have a problem in knowing where to look for answers. I suppose you have no problem in seeking medical help from astrologers.

Zz.

 

[baywax]

Then you have a problem in knowing where to look for answers. I suppose you have no problem in seeking medical help from astrologers.

Zz.

Puleez! They'd keep telling me about how uranus has rings around it, is gaseous and so on.

But seriously Zapper Z... I thought about the validity of my question being in the philosophy forum after your criticism and here's how I can justify it...

If I rephrase the question to say:

"Why has the universe lasted so long?"

the parameter's of the problem can conceivably be picked up by the philosophical crowd.

For example: a philosophical answer could be...

" because it has"

or

"compared to what"

or wishy washy stuff like that... without getting into symmetry or equations or much physics at all.

However, I think philosophy has given a lot of content and hypothesis' to physics... and I believe the reverse is true, or could be true as well.

 

[JaredJames]

Given we don't know "how long" a universe should last, or have no reason to suspect it should have ended by now, there is no basis to the "why has the universe lasted so long" question.

Even the answer from science will be "because it has". There is simply no reason to consider otherwise. A better question for science would be "how long has the universe got left and could we do anything to alter this?".

 

[JaredJames]

Gravity appears to be a fundamental part of the evolution of the universe. Once established, many other laws and states could continue to evolve through trial and error and establish a system that doesn't implode or explode in our faces.

Please justify why you believe trial and error are involved? What evidence is there to suggest trial and error?

I'd like to address the statement that says (paraphrased) "long life doesn't suggest a propensity toward survival"... then they said something like " the universe didn't have to adapt to predators... etc..."

Hello!?

There are pleanty of species on Earth that have evolved without predators. And the species are still around for us to observe. Their species have lasted billions of years.. for example: algae. They continued to evolve, mind you, because the weather changes or because other conditions forced changes to their behaviour and to their physique. No predators. Just a changing environment.

Now, without relying too heavily on analogy or metaphor, the universe has no predator... unless you consider its own expansion as a hell ride to its death, but, it has evolved and laws and states and conditions etc... have been the result of its evolution. I know its not biological... for the most part... and its got no genes so we can't do an epigenetic study on its make up. But, it has survived! How has it done this so efficiently? Is it "Self-Organization"? Is it a directive from a previous universe? These are my philosophical questions... no right answers... just exploration... with no reference to deities or guys with a big beard and a bunch of winged babies, please.

Ps. jarednjames... hopefully not as "plain ridiculous" as you thought earlier...

You are mixing evolved in an evolutionary sense with the non-biological one. These two aren't comparable. When matter exists, gravity exists. Period. There was no trial and error in this. Once you have gravity, things can form (stars, planets, asteroids etc).
You seem to be trying to imply that everything has gone through a development phase where 'designs' if you like were tested to see which ones worked. This just isn't true. We have no reason to suspect this.

There is a difference between having a survival instinct and no predators. No predators gives a very good chance of you living a long life, as you showed. A survival instinct does not guarantee a long life. It means you'll try, but it doesn't mean you'll succeed. Again, these two aren't comparable.

I'd also like you to justify why you believe the laws of physics needed any trial and error. Why can they not just be? If there was a point when they were different, this would imply that we could at some point violate them. That it is possible they can change.

I would like to request you stop using evolution, so I can see clearly which definition of the word you are referring to. So far it appears you are switching definitions throughout your post and I can only assume which you are using.

 

[ZapperZ]

Puleez! They'd keep telling me about how uranus has rings around it, is gaseous and so on.

This "they" should stop telling you all these things, because you took them and let your faulty logic ran away with it.

Zz.

 

[Panwasbipolar]

I'm not qualified, but I'm going to guess, Hunger?

Or to dive into something philo/religio, something(what it is, who knows) knows that if you take a cog out everything crumbles.

I'd like to see the end result of DNA though, maybe. What's the point of struggling to survive if it's not conscious? Of course rocks are just rocks and are fine with it.*mind my knee-jerk reply*

 

[JDStupi]

Alright so you wish to ask a philosophical question, namely "Why has the universe existed for so long?" but it seems you are speaking in terms of a scientific problem. First, you must realize, no matter what, when you ask an ill-defined question, you will get an ill-defined answer. Physically, it could be explained or "answered" by speaking of the Big-Bang theory, and the laws of thermodynamics. Somebody more well-read on Big Bang theory may be able to come in here with more detail, but I would say that after the initial "expansion" the law of energy conservation would be violated if were the universe just to stop its expansion contract and disappear. All of this, of course, must be taken speculatively because that is what it is.
If you're asking the philosophical question, then first realize that what you are asking is very similar to "Why is there something rather than nothing?", but also you must realize that if you are to ask your question philosophically, you must look at "What type of question is a "why" question" "What type of explanation does that entail and what type of explanation do I want?" You must also look at the terms of your question. I am not necessarily saying that you need to apply actual philosophical analysis ala Russel or analytic philosophy, but you must understand what you trying to ask. So, we already saw how the "Why" part of your question must be looked at, then there is "so long" which implies time, but what is time? And in what framework do you seek an answer? Concrete time, that is time as it is experienced and how that shapes our existence or "objective" time? "Objective" time being a measured construction, we cannot have "objective" without measurement and "so long" is a vague "time interval" and "long" being vague cannot be understood in terms of an "interval" of time unless it is arbitraily stated that "t>x is long". But it seems as though you are seeking a fundamental or ontological answer, and in that case, the question of what is entirely independant of humans and the measurable "objective" frameworks we use to create an indpendant structural picture cannot even be apprehended.
We do not know the meaning or relevance of time independant of us, and then if by "so long" you are simply referring to structure and how so much structure has continued to "evolve", that is, develop in complexity, then you find that you aren't asking a philosophical question, but a speculaitve question from the perspective of science and how to scientifically search for the answer, but then you must accept a scientific answer.

Oh yea, going back "If philosophy is not physical what is it?" That presupposes a philosophy, namely materialism and reductionism, and clearly shows that you are not attempting to philosophize but to speculate

And like others said, don't confuse concepts such as "The evolution of the universe" or the "Devolopment of the universe and how certain structures and levels of complex interaction have emerged" with "Evolutionary theory" in terms of Biology. You said something about certain organisms not having "predators", true, but they do have "ecosystems" and biological evolution is inherently a a two-sided aspect, it is "Adapting" to its "environment" so the organism with no predator, must still "interact" with its environment in order to maintain homeostasis and continue to exist, it may not have another organism as a predator, but it still is not a closed independant thing, it is characterized, by its interaction. What would a universe "interact" with, what would the universe "adapt" to ?...And if this is your question, then your confusing the "framework" devised by us to understand nature, with nature itself and how all time-processes must be...I'm sorry if I'm attributing so many possible questions to your quesiton, but you must realize this is due to my (and most likely everyone elses, possibly yourself) misunderstanding of what the question is asking in the first place

 

[apeiron]

Given we don't know "how long" a universe should last, or have no reason to suspect it should have ended by now, there is no basis to the "why has the universe lasted so long" question.

On the contrary, it is standard to argue that our universe seems fine-tuned for existence and so it is a surprise - scientific or philosophical - that it has lasted so long as universes with other fundamental constants would have recollapsed (or expanded so fast as to become too dilute to exist in the way our universe exists with complex structure).

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Fine-tuning_argument

And so it makes perfect sense to look at material theories for why things persist. Biological systems arguably have survival instincts. So the question can at least be asked of the universe. But then we have good theories about physical systems that persist because they are simply self-organised dissipative structures. And that simpler answer seems prima facie far more likely to be the story that would apply to the universe.

 

[JaredJames]

apeiron, did you read that page?

Your argument of "fine tuning" is used in support of the existence of a god or creator.

The page also gives valid counter arguments for fine tuning along with various fallacies. Those counter arguments work against what you said above.

What exactly are you hoping to achieve with that link? Are you trying to push there was a creator?

The fine tuning argument states that these values occurring in such a precise state by mere chance is highly improbable, and that there must have been a creator to fine tune these values in order for our universe to exist as it does and for life to exist on Earth.

I don't see what this argument has to do with the question at hand. All you have done is given an argument for and against there being a god.

 

[baywax]

This "they" should stop telling you all these things, because you took them and let your faulty logic ran away with it.

Zz.

The they are the astrologists you mentioned in jest, while your hands were waving.

 

[baywax]

Please justify why you believe trial and error are involved? What evidence is there to suggest trial and error?


You are mixing evolved in an evolutionary sense with the non-biological one. These two aren't comparable. When matter exists, gravity exists. Period. There was no trial and error in this. Once you have gravity, things can form (stars, planets, asteroids etc).
You seem to be trying to imply that everything has gone through a development phase where 'designs' if you like were tested to see which ones worked. This just isn't true. We have no reason to suspect this.

There is a difference between having a survival instinct and no predators. No predators gives a very good chance of you living a long life, as you showed. A survival instinct does not guarantee a long life. It means you'll try, but it doesn't mean you'll succeed. Again, these two aren't comparable.

I'd also like you to justify why you believe the laws of physics needed any trial and error. Why can they not just be? If there was a point when they were different, this would imply that we could at some point violate them. That it is possible they can change.

I would like to request you stop using evolution, so I can see clearly which definition of the word you are referring to. So far it appears you are switching definitions throughout your post and I can only assume which you are using.

You're right in that I've used the old phrase "trial and error" to describe what is termed "natural selection" in evolution theory.

This should help with one or two of your questions and criticisms...

This timeline of the Big Bang describes the history of the universe according to the prevailing scientific theory of how the universe came into being, using the cosmological time parameter of comoving coordinates.

The instant in which the universe is thought to have begun rapidly expanding from an extremely high energy density is known as the Big Bang.

The best available measurements as of 2010 suggest that the initial conditions occurred between 13.3 and 13.9 billion years ago.[1][2]

It is convenient to divide the evolution of the universe since then into three phases. The very early universe was so hot that particles had energies higher than those currently accessible in particle accelerators on Earth.
Following this period, in the early universe, the evolution of the universe proceeded in accordance with the tenets of high energy physics. This is when the first protons, electrons and neutrons formed, then nuclei and finally atoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

then

In physical cosmology, Big Bang nucleosynthesis (or primordial nucleosynthesis, abbreviated BBN) refers to the production of nuclei other than those of H-1 (i.e. the normal, light isotope of hydrogen, whose nuclei consist of a single proton each) during the early phases of the universe. Primordial nucleosynthesis took place just a few minutes after the Big Bang and is believed to be responsible for the formation of a heavier isotope of hydrogen known as deuterium (H-2 or D), the helium isotopes He-3 and He-4, and the lithium isotopes Li-6 and Li-7. In addition to these stable nuclei some unstable, or radioactive, isotopes were also produced during primordial nucleosynthesis: tritium or H-3; beryllium-7 (Be-7), and beryllium-8 (Be-8). These unstable isotopes either decayed or fused with other nuclei to make one of the stable isotopes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

there is a lot of speculation about the "dawn of time" and the "big bang" and I see no reason why this speculation cannot enter into the discussions of philosophy and logical discourse... I will continue to use the word evolution to describe the continual changes in the universe and in biological units simply because it describes the end result of Natural Selection which can be loosely associated with he mechanism of "trial and error". True enough... "trial and error" implies lab experiments and other anthropocentric activity... but it can also describe the continuous, blind movements and chance meetings of elements, minerals, acids, and the "cogs" of existence that make up the universe.

[PLAIN]http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/Big_Bang/CosmicTimeline.jpg

 

[JaredJames]

Evolution of the universe is not the same thing as evolution of biological entities. Period.

The word has a different meaning when used in either context and it doesn't equate.

Switching between the meanings in the way you have done previously serves only to confuse and it isn't clear which version your referring to. A discussion cannot continue like this unless you are very clear what you mean.

You can push this all you like but unless you prove you understand the differences between the two and show the context you are using them in, your posts are meaningless.

 

[apeiron]

apeiron, did you read that page?

Your argument of "fine tuning" is used in support of the existence of a god or creator.

In fact the page gathers a collection of arguments against religious views that fine-tuning must require a god as first cause. But the fact that the universe is fine-tuned is widely agreed and is deemed scientifically/philosophically relevant. As the page demonstrates.

I have already made it plain that I favour self-organisation as the first cause (though properly speaking, it is final cause in the Aristotelean scheme). And SO in turn founds any explanation squarely in current physics. So what's your problem here?

 

[baywax]

Evolution of the universe is not the same thing as evolution of biological entities. Period.

The word has a different meaning when used in either context and it doesn't equate.

Switching between the meanings in the way you have done previously serves only to confuse and it isn't clear which version your referring to. A discussion cannot continue like this unless you are very clear what you mean.

You can push this all you like but unless you prove you understand the differences between the two and show the context you are using them in, your posts are meaningless.

Sorry... I do not see the distinction... biological evolution is a process of chemical changes and adherence to physical laws in the same way universal evolution is bound by the same principals. Furthermore... biological units are part and parcel with the universe and therefore cannot be singled out as being "different" or separate from the evolution of the universe. Is this a case of "biopomorphism"?

Also..
please site references describing what you see as the big difference between bio-evolutionary processes and non-bio-evolutionary processes.

 

[JaredJames]

In biology, evolution is change in traits of a population of organisms over time (due to a number of mechanisms and processes). In other contexts, the term evolution can mean any gradual directional change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_(disambiguation)
Note at the bottom of this page, there are a number of different uses of evolution. They are all separate, they are not the same thing and cannot be used as such.

For biological evolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Note that in the below definition, biological evolution has its own definition. Biological evolution is not the same as evolution in terms of the universe. In a broad sense you can use definition 1 to cover everything from the universe to biological processes, but you cannot use the biological definition for other entities. You appear to be doing the latter rather than the former.

Evolution
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.a. The process of developing.
2.b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
3.a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
3.b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/evolution

 

[Evo]

Also..
please site references describing what you see as the big difference between bio-evolutionary processes and non-bio-evolutionary processes.

Why would he need to do that?

You first need to define what you mean by survival instincts and explain how you could apply that definition to the entire universe.

 

[baywax]

Why would he need to do that?

Just for clarity.

The various uses of the term do not change the fact that through motion, chemical changes, time and the laws of nature all things evolve whether they be "living" or not.

Any confusion between my use of the word and a function of the universe (including life) resides in jarednjames mind, not in what I've pointed out.

But, if I must accommodate jarednjames confusion then jarednjames can suggest some alternate terms that will make the discussion clearer and to his understanding.

 

[JaredJames]

I've given you the definition's of the word, if you can't identify the difference between the different forms of evolution then I see no further point discussing this issue if I can't be sure you fully understand such a basic concept.

 

[Galteeth]

I think perhaps the OP would find the anthropic principle useful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

 

[Galteeth]

for the notion of evolution in cosmology, See also Smolin's fecund universe theory

 

[baywax]

I've given you the definition's of the word, if you can't identify the difference between the different forms of evolution then I see no further point discussing this issue if I can't be sure you fully understand such a basic concept.

I understand your concern regarding the use of proper terminology to describe specific states, events and conditions and I respect those parameters.

Perhaps we could identify the type of evolution being discussed by using hyphenation... ie: bio-evolution, social-evolution, star-evolution, galactic-evolution and universal-evolution.. and so on.

For my own purposes I tend not to trumpet the differences between life and non-life. Living matter is made up of the same materials as non-living matter and is ruled by the same physical laws as non-living matter. So, the claimed distinctions between life and the rest of the universe seem arbitrary. Sure, life is a demonstratively more complex system than say that of a sun. But a sun is pretty impressive in its "fine tuning" as well.

You could say life is unique in its ability to reproduce but once a sun dies and goes into super nova, this process is the start of a whole "generation" of new suns, its not biological reproduction but it is similar to regenerative "life cycle".

As much as I do not want to draw analogies between the living and the non-living groups of matter in the universe, I tend to see them as closely related due to the fact that they are governed by the same laws and are composed of the materials. It's only the functions of life, the scale and complexity of those functions that appear unrelated to the the events taking place in the realm of the "inanimate" universe.

Whatever naturally selected adaptations result from specific combinations of Adenosine Thymine Cytosine or Guanine that make us stand up and say... "that's evolution!"... the same exclamation applies to how a sun forms from a nebula, which consists of dust particles and hydrogen gas. Gravity pulls this material together into globules, which gradually expand as they convert their constituent hydrogen into helium during nuclear reactions. Its all physics and chemistry.

Its pretty obvious, though, that if someone starts talking about the "genealogy" of a group of stars, the analogy and metaphors have gotten out of hand.

I guess I'm just looking at the propensity of all things to evolve and how that evolution tends to work toward the survival or "self organization" of whatever it is that is evolving. Not in every case... but generally speaking.

 

[baywax]

for the notion of evolution in cosmology, See also Smolin's fecund universe theory

Thank you Galteeth, I'm already looking at these great references.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Thank you Galteeth, I'm already looking at these great references.

Let's pick this up after you've had some time to digest, and can point us toward specific references for discussion. Thanks :)