Our universe always turns out to be bigger, more structured, more complex, and more weirdly efficient, than we've anticipated. So what are we doing wrong?
My son and I read this together and found it very interesting. He says you should make this into a video. I like it as it is.
Is evolution a proper category to talk about nonliving processes? What mechanism could possibly explain the evolution of a system that is not directed by the "imperatives" of survival, reproduction, and thriving as a living being?
There is nothing inherently biological about evolution or natural selection. As long as you have replication of some kind, variation (generated by imperfect replication), and selection (wherein some variants replicate more than others, then you have evolution. So it's not wrong to say that culture (memes), viruses, or potentially universes evolve.
So say everyone agrees and switches to your framing - okay guys, the universe is an egg, not a rock!
But what does it get us?
It assumes a teleology - the universe is set up to assist and move towards "complexity."
But this is a very wide, inchoate end.
It doesn't necessarily mean "us," or even "life."
Isn't life complex? Sure, kind of - but at the energy and organization scales we're talking about, quasars and galactic threads and voids, our entire galaxy is merely rounding error, much less one tiny planet in one tiny solar system with some tarted up apes talking about stuff on Substack.
Maybe there's a certain hyperintelligent shade of blue, the hooloovoo (pace Adams), and it's some Architect of Aeons and has directly impacted some of the threads and voids or something, and the universe is really about them.
So if it's not us, or life, then what does it get us to assume a teleological end that we can neither detect nor specify?
The only prediction it would seemingly give us is "we should expect cosmology to be more complex than we currently do." Which is fine, I guess - but specifying or using or even seeing that additional complexity is totally reliant on us coming up with better instruments and practices, and we can't really act on anything until then. It doesn't really give us anything actionable, or predictive, is my point. But you know, this is the first of the series, maybe you've thought about this and have some ideas on that front - if so, I'm looking forward to them.
Great post, I recently read Thomas Hertog's "On the Origin of Time" and it is seems very similar to these ideas. Putting humans, the observer into the equation. Evolution seems to do that. Interesting to think about how the errors might have directionality to them and thus pointing to a systemic pattern of bias and also where to look. I enjoyed the creative interjections throughout to keep the writing lively.
Many people say that the ever-growing universe makes us all the more insignificant. I disagree. The universe keeps getting bigger, but, so far as we know, Earth is the only planet with life.
Brilliant piece on cognitive bias in cosmology that most people miss. The idea that our erors always underestimate complexity rather than randomizing both ways is probaly the strongest evidence for teh evolved universe framework. I remember learning about quasars in undergrad and nobody mentioned how long we thought they were nearby objects. That pattern of systematically assuming simplicity explains why breakthrough observations keep suprising us.
Super interesting and makes a lot of sense. Only objection is I don't love the word "dogma" (borrowed from my own field). There should be a better word to name these assured results of scholarship that become normative, that is, when suggested theories function as fact. To me it seems to represent more of a scholarship trend than a dogma (which is actually unchanging).
I'd really like to see a post comparing multiverse and evolutionary approaches. If one imagines a bazillion universes arising in an infinitude of empty, why wouldn't they arise by different processes with different outcomes? If it takes 14 billion years for us to get to this point in our system, then we couldn't be in any (simpler, self-contradictory) universe that fails after 1 billion years. Sampling bias alone would put us in a complex, stably growing universe. So it might not take evolution, only an infinitude if dice rolls at the same time.
My son and I read this together and found it very interesting. He says you should make this into a video. I like it as it is.
Is evolution a proper category to talk about nonliving processes? What mechanism could possibly explain the evolution of a system that is not directed by the "imperatives" of survival, reproduction, and thriving as a living being?
Good suggestion and good question!
There is nothing inherently biological about evolution or natural selection. As long as you have replication of some kind, variation (generated by imperfect replication), and selection (wherein some variants replicate more than others, then you have evolution. So it's not wrong to say that culture (memes), viruses, or potentially universes evolve.
So say everyone agrees and switches to your framing - okay guys, the universe is an egg, not a rock!
But what does it get us?
It assumes a teleology - the universe is set up to assist and move towards "complexity."
But this is a very wide, inchoate end.
It doesn't necessarily mean "us," or even "life."
Isn't life complex? Sure, kind of - but at the energy and organization scales we're talking about, quasars and galactic threads and voids, our entire galaxy is merely rounding error, much less one tiny planet in one tiny solar system with some tarted up apes talking about stuff on Substack.
Maybe there's a certain hyperintelligent shade of blue, the hooloovoo (pace Adams), and it's some Architect of Aeons and has directly impacted some of the threads and voids or something, and the universe is really about them.
So if it's not us, or life, then what does it get us to assume a teleological end that we can neither detect nor specify?
The only prediction it would seemingly give us is "we should expect cosmology to be more complex than we currently do." Which is fine, I guess - but specifying or using or even seeing that additional complexity is totally reliant on us coming up with better instruments and practices, and we can't really act on anything until then. It doesn't really give us anything actionable, or predictive, is my point. But you know, this is the first of the series, maybe you've thought about this and have some ideas on that front - if so, I'm looking forward to them.
Great post, I recently read Thomas Hertog's "On the Origin of Time" and it is seems very similar to these ideas. Putting humans, the observer into the equation. Evolution seems to do that. Interesting to think about how the errors might have directionality to them and thus pointing to a systemic pattern of bias and also where to look. I enjoyed the creative interjections throughout to keep the writing lively.
Many people say that the ever-growing universe makes us all the more insignificant. I disagree. The universe keeps getting bigger, but, so far as we know, Earth is the only planet with life.
Brilliant piece on cognitive bias in cosmology that most people miss. The idea that our erors always underestimate complexity rather than randomizing both ways is probaly the strongest evidence for teh evolved universe framework. I remember learning about quasars in undergrad and nobody mentioned how long we thought they were nearby objects. That pattern of systematically assuming simplicity explains why breakthrough observations keep suprising us.
Super interesting and makes a lot of sense. Only objection is I don't love the word "dogma" (borrowed from my own field). There should be a better word to name these assured results of scholarship that become normative, that is, when suggested theories function as fact. To me it seems to represent more of a scholarship trend than a dogma (which is actually unchanging).
good point - well said!
Thanks for the entertaining and informative post.
I'd really like to see a post comparing multiverse and evolutionary approaches. If one imagines a bazillion universes arising in an infinitude of empty, why wouldn't they arise by different processes with different outcomes? If it takes 14 billion years for us to get to this point in our system, then we couldn't be in any (simpler, self-contradictory) universe that fails after 1 billion years. Sampling bias alone would put us in a complex, stably growing universe. So it might not take evolution, only an infinitude if dice rolls at the same time.