Re: +ve or -ve curvature (was: necessity of mental memes)

From: Grant Callaghan (
Date: Thu Jan 31 2002 - 03:47:59 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: necessity of mental memes"

    Received: by id DAA03956 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 03:53:45 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Grant Callaghan" <>
    Subject: Re: +ve or -ve curvature (was: necessity of mental memes)
    Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:47:59 -0800
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2002 03:47:59.0801 (UTC) FILETIME=[1394FA90:01C1AA0A]
    Precedence: bulk

    >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
    A beautiful picture, John. I have seen emergence encompassing AI rather
    than AI producing its own emergence separate from the noosphere. If
    computers do become self replicating, as they have the potential of doing if
    we start using DNA in their construction, then your prediction seems highly
    plausible. I read today that there's going to be a conference on
    non-silicon chip building in the near future. The basic elements of a
    computer (the switches) have already been made out of DNA, nanotubes, single
    molecules of metal, and who knows what else we still haven't heard about.
    Self constructing arrays of nanotubes have also been developed in a test
    tube. We may yet be able to cram libraries of information into a space
    smaller than a chromasome and make it self replicating in a way that DNA is
    not. Who knows what might emerge from that scenerio? Do you believe in
    Kurzweil's "singularity?"


    Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

    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 - 04:02:27 GMT