Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA03764 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:59:41 GMT Message-ID: <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:50:32 +0000 (GMT) From: John Croft <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: +ve or -ve curvature (was: necessity of mental memes) To: email@example.com In-Reply-To: <200201280917.JAA03317@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
Jo wrote to my post
> So, rather than being riemannian, spacetime is
> lobatchevskeyan, and is represented not by the
> sphere, but by the hyperbola?
Yes, well said.
> One question; since the Big Bang was an
> instantaneous event, yet gravity continues to exert
> its influence over 'billions and billions' of years,
> even unto eternity if a Big Crunch is not achieved,
> how can it be that a finite explosion, however
> large, will not eventually be drawn 'back to ground'
> by a pull that can exercise itself for an infinite
> duration? Wouldn't it HAVE to be achieved
> eventually, just because of the power of
> potentially) forever over even a vast finitude?
Not at all, don't forget gravity diminishes by the
inverse square of distance, whereas the explosion is
omnipotential (diminishing through gravity but not to
a value necessary to achieve closure).
The question about the "size" of the Big Bang has
become academic since Alan Guth's inflationary theory
suggested that the "Universe" (Multiverse?) is at
least 10^60 times as big as the observable Universe
(Roughly 15 billion light years in radius). He
further suggested that within this multiverse some
"sections" may in fact be contracting, some yet to
reach closure, others expanding like ours, and yet
others so hyperbolic that matter can never clump, and
in fact would be smeared out to a concentration
approaching zero. We would be isolated from such
"sections" by the vacuum ground state from which the
inflation began. Lee Smolin has suggested that the
chances for the existence of the present Universe is
so small as to be vanishingly remote, as only a very
specific set of internal conditions permit the
evolution of structure (i.e. The Anthropocentric
principle, which I prefer to call a "Gaia-centric"
principle as it does not say anything about humans at
all, only about the possibility of life).
Smolin has proposed that if, as many suggest, Black
Holes are gateways to "daughter universes" then we
have a "third replicator" to the gene and the meme.
This third replicator would be the universe itself.
Those universes which contained a great deal of
internal structure, producing many hundreds of
billions of black-holes (stars and galaxies), would
numerically quickly outnumber those that did not. A
"Darwinian selection" mechanism at the level of the
universe would then operate to produce universes close
to the conditions that we observe. Such a Darwinian
selection is a useful mechanism to get beyond the
vitalistic assumptions of some of the teleological
assumptions of the Anthropocentric Principle.
If it is true we live in a Universe of three
replicators, then we are coming close to the vision
articulated by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
Cosmogenesis - the first replicator (Big Bang) - the
creation of the and evolution of the Cosmos.
Biogenesis - the second replicator (Gene) - the
creation and evolution of the Biosphere.
Noogenesis - the third replicator (Meme) - the
creation and evolution of the Noosphere.
Given these three replicators we observe "emergent
properties" from each one. In fact the process of
Biogenesis would seem to be an emergent property of
Cosmogenesis, and Noogenesis in turn an emergent
property of the processes of Biogenesis.
Given that each replicator creates an ecological
system of significant complexity - for instance,
despite the finding of a separate ecosystem at the
deep ocean vents there is a single "Biosphere" on the
Earth (The "Biosphere 2" project was unsuccessful in
its terms to create a separate "system"), there is
only one over-arching system. Similarly, despite the
existence of multiple cultures and sub-culters, so
there is now only one globalising global Noosphere,
created through memeplex interaction.
It makes one wonder what would happen if we created a
fourth replicator. If allowed to persist and evolve
such a preplicator would equally evolve as a single
unified "system" (similar to Cosmos, Bios and
Noosphere). Once an AI evolved, it would seem that it
would naturally network widely distributing itself as
wildely as possible (to seek its survival - i.e.
replication), ultimately creating one AI system for
the planet. Given the "nested nature" of replicators
-Noos incorporated in Bios, Bios incorporated in
Cosmos, so any fourth replicator would be incorporated
in Noos. It makes me wonder whether the duplication
of computer viruses is not the first faltering steps
towards the appearance and evolution of the 4th
replicator. It's appearance would certainly be a fair
candidate for Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's "Omega
Point" and the appearance of the post-historic, and
possibly post-human world.
A few thoughts to think about
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 02:08:11 GMT