evo devo universe? a framework for speculations on cosmic culture evo devo universe 2008 october...

Evo Devo Universe?A Framework for Speculations on Cosmic Culture

Evo Devo Universe 2008 October 2008 Paris, France

John Smart, President Acceleration Studies Foundation

Los AngelesNew YorkPalo Alto © 2008 Accelerating.org

AccelerationStudiesFoundationA 501(c)(3) Nonprofit

Outline

• Accelerating Change Phenomenon

• U-Shaped Curve of Change Phenomenon

• Evo, Info and Devo Extensions to Cosmology

• Informational Computational U. Hypothesis

• Evo Devo Universe Hypothesis

- Evo Info Devo (EID) Cartoon Model

- Processes of Universal Development

• Developmental Singularity Hypothesis

• Global, Social, and Personal Implications



Acceleration Studies:Something Curious Is Going On

An unexplained physical phenomenon.

(Don’t look for this in your current

physics or information theory texts…)

The Developmental Spiral



Our Infomorphic, Biofelicitous, Accelerating Universe

Assumption:The universe is a physical-computational system.We exist for information theoretic reasons.We’re here to evolve and develop.To care, count, and act.To create, discover, and manage.To innovate, plan, profit, and predict,in a wondrously ordered, elegant, and surprising environment.



“Unreasonable” Effectiveness and Efficiency of Science and the Microcosm (Wigner and Mead)

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner, 1960 After Wigner and Freeman Dyson’s work in 1951, on simple universalities and symmetries in mathematical physics.

Commentary on the “Unreasonable Efficiency of Physics in the Microcosm,” VSLI Pioneer Carver Mead, c. 1980.

F=ma E=mc2

F=-(Gm1m2)/r2

W=(1/2mv2)

In 1968, Mead predicted we would create much smaller (to 0.15 micron) multi-million chip transistors that would run far faster and more efficiently. He later generalized this observation to a number of other devices.



From the Big Bang to Complex Stars: The Decelerating Phase of Universal Development



From Biogenesis to Intelligent Technology: The Accelerating Phase of Universal Development

Carl Sagan’s “Cosmic Calendar” (Dragons of Eden, 1977)

Each month is roughly 1 billion years.



A U-Shaped Curve of Change:Inner Space to Outer Space Back to Inner Space Again

Big Bang Singularity

100,000 yrs ago: H. sap. sap.

1B yrs: Protogalaxies 8B yrs: Earth

400,000 yrs: Matter

50 yrs ago: Machina silico50 yrs: Scalar Field Scaffolds

Developmental Singularity?



Cosmic Embryogenesis (in Three Easy Steps)

Geosphere/Geogenesis(Chemical Substrate)

Biosphere/Biogenesis(Biological-Genetic Substrate)

Noosphere/Noogenesis(Memetic-Technologic Substrate)

Le Phénomène Humain, 1955

Pierre Teihard de Chardin (1881-1955)

Jesuit Priest, Transhumanist, Developmental Systems Theorist



De Chardin on Technological Acceleration: Developmental “Cephalization” of Earth

"No one can deny that a network (a world network) of economic and psychic affiliations is being woven at ever increasing speed which envelops and constantly penetrates more deeply within each of us. With every day that passes it becomes a little more impossible for us to act or think otherwise than collectively."

“Finite Sphericity + Acceleration = Phase Transition”



Ray Kurzweil: A Generalized Moore’s Law



Emergence Acceleration:Independent Assessments (Preliminary Data)

Ray Kurzweil, 2006



Dickerson’s Law: Solved Protein Structures as a Moore’s-Dependent Process

Richard Dickerson, 1978, Cal Tech:

Protein crystal structure solutions grow according to n=exp(0.19y1960)

Dickerson’s law predicted 14,201 solved crystal structures by 2002. The actual number (in online Protein Data Bank (PDB)) was 14,250. Just 49 more.

Macroscopically, the curve has been quite consistent.



© 2007 Accelerating.org

EDU Article Abstract - I

The underlying paradigm for cosmology is theoretical physics. We explore ways this framework might be extended with insights from information and computation studies and evolutionary developmental (evo-devo) biology. We also briefly consider implications of such a framework for cosmic culture.

We can distinguish evolutionary processes which are stochastic, creative, and ‘divergent,’ and developmental processes which produce statistically predictable, robust, conservative, and ‘convergent’ structures and trajectories.

Smart, John M. 2008. Evo Devo Universe? A Framework for Speculations on Cosmic Culture. In: Cosmos and Culture, Steven J. Dick (ed.), NASA Press (est. 2009).




EDU Article Abstract - II

We will model our universe as an information processing, evolutionary and developmental systemas an evo info devo universe (abbrev. evo devo universe hereafter). Our framework will try to reconcile the majority of unpredictable, evolutionary features of universal emergence with a subset of potentially statistically predictable and developmental universal trends, including:

Acceleration in universal complexity (e.g. Aunger 2007), a pattern seen over the last half—but not the first half—of the universe’s history

Increasing spatial and temporal locality of universal complexity development

Hierarchies of increasingly matter and energy efficient and matter and energy dense ‘substrates’ (platforms) for adaptation and computation

The apparent accelerating emergence, on Earth, of increasingly postbiological (technological) systems of physical transformation and computation.




Three Models

The informational computational universe (ICU) hypothesis considers the universe as a ‘purposeful’ information processing system ‘shaped’ by emergent information, in which biological culture has the potential to play some integral (e.g., anthropic) yet transient universal role. The evo devo universe (EDU) hypothesis considers the universe engaged in both evolutionary creativity and hierarchical development, including accelerating hierarchical development we call ‘STEM compression’ of computation.The developmental singularity (DS) hypothesis proposes our universe’s accelerating and hierarchically dissipative intelligence systems are developmentally constrained to produce a very specific outcome, a black hole analogous computing system that, per other theorists (see Smolin 1997) may be an integral component in the replicative life cycle of our evo devo universe in the multiverse.




Informational Computational Universe hypothesis

ICU assumption: Our universe is both ‘in the shape of’ and ‘shaped by’ information and its emergents. A cosmos of information and information processors (prebiological, biological and postbiological) which play roles as both descriptions of and shapers of universal dynamics.The more easily observable and quantifiable physical features of our universe, such as space, time, energy, and matter/mass, will be referred to as STEM. Such features are impressively well-characterized, e.g. general relativity and quantum theory. But no Einstein of information or computation theory, yet.When STEM is described with the more abstract and harder-to-measure features of information and computation emergents, we may call this a STEM+IC universe (Smart 2002b).IC has real influence. Mind has an ever more pervasive impact on matter as a function of its complexity (Dyson 1988).




Digital Physics – An Alluring Vision

We may one day have an understanding of our universe as a quantized computing system (Zuse 1969; Wheeler 1983; Deutsch 1985,1997; Chaitin 1987; Fredkin 1990,1992; Wolfram 2002; Lloyd 2006) that is discrete (at the Planck scale) but never complete (in its calculations).




Infodynamics (Salthe 1990) + Thermodynamics:What are the IC Constraints on STEM Processes?

In these early days of information and computation theory we can suggest many incomplete sets.

Melioristic Universe (James 1921). Church-Turing Thesis on Computational Equivalence and

Interdependence, (Church 1934; Turing 1936). Gödel’s Thesis on Incompleteness (Gödel 1934; Chaitin 1998). Participatory Anthropic Principle (Wheeler 1983; Lloyd 2006). Strong (Life) Anthropic Principle (Barrow & Tipler 1986). ‘Final’ (Intelligence) Anthropic Principle (Barrow & Tipler 1986). Intelligence Principle (Dick 2003). Hierarchical Universe of Increasingly Intelligent and Dissipative

Complex Adaptive Systems (Simon 1962; de Vaucouleurs 1970; Pattee 1973; Nicolis and Prigogine 1977; Allen and Starr 1982; Salthe 1985,1993; Moravec 1988; Paul and Cox 1996; Kurzweil 1999; Chaisson, 2001).




Observer Selection Bias Does Not Invalidate all Anthropic Insights in a Developmental Universe

Observer selection bias must accompany all anthropic reasoning (universe hypotheses made from our position as intelligent observers).

Bostrom (2002) and others might invoke a random-observer self-sampling assumption to critique ICU-related thinking. Yet the EDU hypothesis will argue that random observer-moments only exist in evolutionary processes, and must be an incorrect framework for developmental processes.

If processes of universal development exist, and if they bias intelligence to be a nonrandom (increasingly central) observer in the universe system, as they do with intelligence in biological systems, theories of universal development must prove an even more fundamental framework to test for anthropic bias.

In such case, all observer selection models must be a subset of universal evolutionary development models.




Evo Devo Universe hypothesis

Evo-devo biology seeks to resolve the differences between evolutionary and developmental processes spanning the scales of cells, organisms and ecologies (Carroll 2005, many others).

Recalling Teilhard’s (1955) evocative phrase, ‘cosmic embryogenesis,’ if the Big Bang acts like a seed, and the expanding universe like an embryo, it must use both stochastic, contingent, and local/micro ‘adaptational’ processes—what we are calling evolution—in its elaboration of form and function, just as we see at the molecular scale in any embryo.

Embryos also transition through a set of statistically predictable, convergent, and global/macro differentiation milestones, then reproduction, senescence, and the unavoidable termination of somatic (body) life—what we are calling development.

If the evo devo analogy has homology, there must be unpredictable creativity and predictable developmental milestones, reproduction, and ending to our universe.




An EDU Analogy: Genetically Identical Twins and Parametrically Identical Universes

• In genetically identical twins, organogenesis, fingerprints, brain wiring, learned ideas, behaviors, many local, microscopic processes are unpredictably unique in each twin (Jain 2002). Yet many global, macroscopic processes are predictably the same.

• Would parametrically identical universes also be mostly and locally unique, yet with predictable global and macroscopic similarities?

• This is a question for future simulation science.




Evolution: A Tentative Definition

Evolutionary processes in biology, and perhaps also in physical, chemical, cultural, technological, and universal systems, are stochastic (random within constraints), creative, divergent (variation creating), contingent, nonlinear, and unpredictable.

This intrinsic unpredictability may be our most useful quantitative definition and discriminator of evolutionary processes at all systems levels.

Note: Evolution is NOT natural selection, in this definition. Its fundamental dynamic is change and variation (within constraints). It is a creativity generator, and thus a precursor to natural selection.

Example: Genetic drift in neutral theory (Kimura 1983; Leigh 2007).




Development: A (Tentative) Definition

Developmental processes in biology, and we assume also in physical, chemical, cultural, technological, and universal systems, are directional, hierarchical, constraining, convergent, integrative, self-assembling/self-organizing, and statistically predictable if you have the right empirical or theoretical aids.

This systemic predictability may be our most useful quantitative definition and discriminator of developmental processes at all systems levels.

Development also has a cyclical hierarchy: birth, growth, maturation, reproduction, senescence, death (recycling).

Note: Development is NOT natural selection, in this definition. It is convergent unifier, and thus a specialized outcome of natural selection.

Examples: Differentiation, STEM compression, ergodicity, evolutionary homoplasy, modularity, hierarchy, self-similarity, scale invariance, self-org., stigmergy, niche construction, etc.




Evo Info Devo (EID) Process: Cartoon Model I

Assumption: A universe of information (computationally complex patterns of physical STEM as adapted structure), with evolution and development as complementary modes of information processing in all complex adaptive systems, including the universe as a system.




““Experimentation”Experimentation”Main Actor: Seed Replication, Variation,Chaos, Contingency,Early Species Radiation(Mostly Nonadapted)Stochastic SearchStrange AttractorsRadiation

Development

‘Right Hand’ of Change

Evolution

‘Left Hand’ of ChangeWell-Explored Phase Space ‘Optimization’New Computational Phase Space ‘Opening’

““Convergent Unification”Convergent Unification”Main Actor: EnvironmentLife Cycle, STEM Compression,Ergodicity/Comp. Closure,‘Evolutionary’ Convergence,Path-Dependence/Hierarchy, Dissipative Structures,Positive Sumness/Synergy,Niche Construction/Stigmergy, Self-Organization (Global Adaptation) Environmental OptimizationStandard AttractorsHierarchy

““Natural Selection”Natural Selection”Main Actor: Organism Modularity, Responsiveness,Plasticity, Intelligence(Local Adaptation)Requisite VarietyMixed AttractorsAdaptation

Info (EvoDevo)

(Intersection)

Evo Info Devo (EID) Process: Cartoon Model II




Evo Info Devo (EID) Examples:Experimentation + Selectionism + Unification

‘Quantum Darwinism’ in the transition from quantum to classical physics (Blume-Kohout and Zurek 2005)

Stellar nucleosynthesis (Wallenberg) Biogenesis (Smith and Morowitz 2006) Multicellularity (Newman and Bhat 2008) ‘Neural Darwinism’ in brain development (Edelman 1989) Cognitive selectionism (thinking) (Calvin 1985) Evolutionary psychology (Wright 1998) Cultural, ‘memetic’, and ‘technetic’ selection (Aunger) Evolutionary computation and artificial life (Koza) Cosmological natural selection (Smolin 1992)



Evo Info Devo (EID) Triad: Three Universal Telos (Values/Goals/Drives/Ethics) in Complex Systems

Three functional processes(telos) can be observed in:

Physical Systems Chemical Systems Biological Systems Societal Systems Technological Systems Our Universe as a System

With the EID model we can look at complex adaptive systems as either: 1. Info Systems (making their evo and devo processes implicit), 2. Evo Devo Systems (making their info processing implicit), or3. Evo, Info and Devo Systems (keeping all three perspectives explicit).




Evo Devo in Creation and Control:The ’95/5%’ Rule of Thumb

The vast majority (let us roughly propose 95%) of the information and computation to describe and model both creation of a new CAS or hierarchy or control in a mature CAS or hierarchy involves bottom-up, local, evo processes. A minor yet critical contribution (again, let us roughly propose 5%) comes from top-down, systemic, developmental processes.

Ex: No of genes used (and highly conserved) in developmental toolkit in any species (eg., Dictyostelium, 2-3%), vs. the much larger number of ‘evolutionary’ genes that are more frequently modified and affect phenotype variation, not development.

The 95/5% Rule may explain why discovery of universal development been difficult not in physics and chemistry (where we have made great strides, e.g., mechanics, relativity, particle physics) but in biology, society, and technology.

In these latter substrates, which are not yet ergodic, the time scale of the (‘5%’) nonrandom developmental signal is much longer than the (‘95%’) near-random evolutionary signal.




Evo Devo, Life Cycle, and Intelligence: Seed, Organism, Environment (SOE) Intelligence Partitioning

The disposable soma theory of aging (Kirkwood 1977,2005) outlines two different choices in energy and information flow that occur in the ‘disposable’ soma (organism, body) versus the ‘immortal’ germline (seed, sperm/ egg) in all biological systems.

Bio intelligence actually lives in three places however: seed, organism, and environment (SOE).

In an evo info devo universe, intelligence is energetically and informationally partitioned between a soma (organism) that is finite, reproductive and mortal, an ‘immortal’ (and much slower-changing) germline (seed) of parameters that have very slowly self-organized through many reproductive cycles in the multiverse, and the multiverse itself (environment).



What are black holes?



Lee Smolin’s Answer: Developmental Systems Engaged in ‘Cosmological Natural Selection’

At least 8 of the “fundamental”universal parameters appear tuned for:

– black hole production– multi-billion year old Universes (capable of creating Life)

Lee Smolin, The Life of the Cosmos, 1996




Cosmological Natural Selection (CNS)

Perhaps the first viable astrophysical evo devo universe model to date. Quentin Smith (1990,2000) Lee Smolin (1992,1994,1997,2006).

Seeks to explain the ‘fine tuning’ or ‘improbable universe’ problem (Leslie 1989, Rees 1999, Barrow 2002,2007).

19+15, or 20, or 6, or 3, or no? fundamental parameters, an ‘economical but ungainly’ set, like developmental genes. We may eliminate some, yet add more as particle physics advances.

In Smolin’s simulations (1992,1994,1997), eight of approximately twenty parameters appear fine tuned both for long-lived universes capable of generating complex life and for the production of hundreds of trillions of black holes (‘fecundity’ of production)

CNS proposes the special values of our universal parameters are the result of an evolutionary selection process involving universe reproduction via black holes, (and thus universe adaptation in the multiverse).




Cosmological Natural Selection with Intelligence (CNS-I)

CNS is a ‘genetic’ theory of intelligence influence on natural selection (‘genetic’ CNS-I)

It stops short in considering how genetic intelligence must lead to ‘postgenetic’ substrates (eg, cultural and technological evo devo), as we see on Earth, and how postgenetic influences must grow in strength over universal time.

Models which address this may be called full or ‘high-level’ CNS-I (Crane 1994; Harrison 1995,1998; Gardner 2000,2003,2005,2007; Smart 2000,2002,2008; Balázs 2002; McCabe 2006; Vidal 2008).




Development as a Logical Specification Hierarchy

1. AstroPhysics (Universe-as-CAS, constants, laws, space-time, matter-energy)

2. AstroChemistry (galaxies, stars, planets, inorganic and organic chemistry)

3. AstroBiology (cells, organisms, populations, species, ecologies)

4. AstroSociology (culture, economics, law, science, engineering, etc.)

5. AstroTechnology (bio-inspired computing, tech. singularity, postbiological ‘life’)

Note: Galaxies and earlier CAS (in italics above) may also be

replicative evo devo systems if there is a multiverse.




Development as Terminal Differentiation




Development as Ergodicity (State Space ‘Closure’)Key to a Model of Self-Organization?




Development as Evolutionary Convergence (Homoplasy) - I

Some homoplasies greatly advance individual and cultural information processing and adaptation in a broad range of environments, for the first species that acquire them. Simon Conway Morris (Life’s Solution, 2004): eyes, jointed limbs, body plans, emotions, imagination, language, opposable thumbs, tool use, etc.The streamlined shape of fish fins, first created as an evolutionary morphological experiment, must persist in the genes of all organisms seeking to move rapidly through water on all Earth-like planets, as a universal developmental constraint imposed by the physics of our universe. In an ICU universe, such advances are ‘evolutionary ratchets’ (function randomly acquired but statistically irreversible once acquired, in a broad range of environments), a type of developmental optima (for a given level of environmental complexity) in all universes of our type.




Development as Evolutionary Convergence (Homoplasy) - II

Many such homoplasies may be developmental attractors in a hierarchical informational computational universe:

Organic (carbon) chemistry (vs. silicon, boron, etc.) Biotic precursors (amino acids, purines&pyrimidines, pre-lipids) RNA as enzyme and code Dynamical patterning modules (Newman & Bhat 2008) Eyes, body plans, limbs, joints, wings, etc. (Morris 2004) Bilateral symmetry, binocular vision, tetrapod form Bipedalism, opposable thumbs, anthropoid form (Russell) Gestural, behavioral, oral, written mimicry memetics (languages) Lithic and neolithic tool use (rock, spear, lever, rope, wheel, pulley) Internal combustion engine Math, science, computers Etc.




Development as STEM Compression

Our universe is apparently constructing special zones of local intelligence (complexity, modeling capacity, meaningful information) which are measurably and predictably more space, time, energy and matter dense, or STEM dense (meaning increasingly localized in space, accelerated in time, and dense in energy and matter flows), and STEM efficient (in space, time, energy, and matter resources used per standardized computation or physical transformation). (Smart 1999,2000,2002b).

Space Compression (Increasing Locality of CAS Hierarchy) Time Compression (accelerating change, Cosmic Calendar) Energy Compression (free energy rate density) Matter Compression (learning curves, cities, high density comp.)




Free Energy Rate Density: A ‘Right Wall’ of Increasingly Local Dynamic Complexity

Global AI of the 21st C? 1012+

Pentium II of the 1990's 1011

Intel 8080 of the 1970's 1010

Modern engines 105 to 108

Society (Modern culture) 5x105

Brains (Human cranium) 1.5x105

Animals (Human body) 2x104

Ecosystems (Biosphere) 900

Planets (Cooling Earth) 75

Stars (Sun) 2

Galaxies (Milky Way) 0.5Free energy rate density values in emergent hierarchical CAS. (Adapted from Chaisson 2001).




Energy Rate Density Flow Depends on Life Cycle Stage in Biological Development

Note the ‘right walls’ (hatching and reproductive maturity) of energy rate density increase in a developing organism.

Different dynamic depending on the developmental phase (fertilization, hatching, reproductive maturity, senescence

Are there analogies for social and technological development?

For universal development?




Are Earth’s and the Universe’s Info/Computation/ Value Production Histories Both on a J-Curve?

GDP per capita in Western Europe, 1000 CE to 1999 CE. Adapted from The Economist , Jan 3, 2000.

J-curve of the LAC ‘law,’ a series of first order S- and B-curves (indiv. growth-limited comp.substrates).




Is there a Universal Law of Locally Asymptotic Computation (LAC)?



Estimating the Growth and Limits of Universal Computation

Universal Computing to Date: 10^120 logical ops – Turing, Von Neumann, Ed Fredkin, John Wheeler

Digital Computing to Date: 10^31 logical ops – Half this was produced in the last 2 year doubling.

Lloyd’s Estimate: 300 Doublings (600 years) to a “Past-Closed” Omega Computer.

– Understanding most Developmental History and some of the Evolutionary History of the System. (e.g., CA’s)

Computing right down to Planck Scale?– No Minimum Energy to Send a Bit (Landauer)– Quantum and Femto-Scale Processes

Seth Lloyd, “Computational Capacity of the Universe, Phys.Rev.Lett., 2002C. Bennett & R. Landauer, “Fund. Phys. Limits of Computation, Sci. Am., July 1985




Developmental Singularity (aka, ‘Inner Space’ or ‘Transcension’) Hypothesis

Due to the universal developmental trend of STEM compression, Earth’s local intelligence will apparently very soon in astronomical time develop black-hole-analogous features, a highly local, dense, and maximally computationally efficient form we may call a developmental singularity (DS) (Smart 2000).

The DS seems to be a natural progression of the technological singularity that is likely to emerge on Earth in coming generations.

The DS hypothesis proposes universal intelligence development from ‘outer space’ to ‘inner space’ (zones of great STEM density and great self-awareness/simulation capacity).

The DS hypothesis is a ‘Transcension hypothesis’ (intelligence becomes increasingly local and leaves the visible universe) as opposed to an ‘Expansion hypothesis’ (intelligence expands throughout and reshapes the visible universe over time).



Transcension Hypothesis: A DevelopmentalDestiny for Local Intelligence?

‘Black Hole Equivalent’ Transcension may be adevelopmental destiny for local intelligence,apparently very soon in cosmological time.

• Driven by accelerating STEM compression• Expressing Intelligence, Interdependence, and Immunity• A destiny of Inner Space, not Outer Space (Age of Sims)



The Fermi Paradox

So where are the ET’s?

Our Milky Way Galaxy is just 45,000 light years in radius.Earth-like planets 2-5 Billion years older than us closer to the core.

Andromeda Galaxy isonly 2 mill light yrs away

A Dev. Sing. Prediction: SETI Fossils by 2080

“Answering the Fermi Paradox,” John Smart, 2003



Present Score: 13 for Transcension, 2 for Expansion

The Case For Transcension1. Universal Speed Limit (c), and Isolation of Everything Interesting2. Hierarchy Emergence Exhibits Singularities (Phase Transitions)3. Relentless STEM Compression of Hierarchy Emergence 4. Age of Simulations (Networks, Inner Space)5. Technological Singularity Hypothesis6. “Plenty of Room at the Bottom” (Richard Feynman about Nanotech)7. Bottom is Strange (Quantum Weirdness) and Computational8. Hyperspace (String, M, Supersymmetry or some such theory, 10,11,26D)9. Multiverse Theories with very early simulation testability (CNS, CNS-I) 10. Fermi Paradox Explanation (Constrained Developmental Transcension)11. Lambda Universe Explanation (The Kerrigan Problem. "Why Now?")12. A Non-Anthropomorphic Future13. Midpoint Evidence (weak but potentially useful)

The (Highly Suspect) Case for Expansion1. 3D Space was the Cradle and is the Playground for Biological Life2. Expansion is a Comfortable Extrapolation of our Frontier Experience



Evo Devo Foresight:Implications of the EDU Framework for Humanity - I

Our History, Present, and Future can be rewritten as:– Evolutionary choices (Evo, 95%), developmental forces

(Devo, 5%) and the Learning/Simulation increase (Info, 100%) from their interaction

Evo, Info, and Devo Teleology. Innovation, learning, and sustainability goals, drives, and values constrain humans and our tech, and will constrain AIs to come.

Sustainable Innovation. Devo and evo polarized countries, parties, and people exist. We need both.

95/5 Rule. Don’t overconstrain (too much devo), don’t see change as unstructured (too much evo).

Seed, Org, Envir (SOE) Intelligence Partitioning. – Biological immortality is a major, mistaken fantasy– We need a new theory of identity/intelligence



Evo Devo Foresight:Implications of the Framework for Humanity - II

Hierarchy and Acceleration. – We are in a purposeful, accelerative, emergent process.– Humans aren’t the end of the line. We will ‘pass the baton.’

STEM Compression will continue on Earth– Human cities will only get more STEM efficient/dense– STEM dense tech (nanotech) will continue to deliver

unreasonable returns Inner Space increasingly encompasses Outer Space

– Increasing importance of the human mind and heart (education, beliefs, philosophy) in culture, politics, economics

– Increasing growth in the value and capacity of the virtual, increasing virtual-physical and human-machine interface

– Importance of ‘gardening’ our technological extensions (they are the next inner space), and guiding their interaction with the current inner space (human consciousness).



Evo Devo Foresight:Implications of the Framework for Humanity - III

Outlines of an Evo Devo Theory– Two-way exchange is necessary for complexity construction.

Feedback is a critical requirement (’95%’ of info flow).– One-way exchange is useful only for control. (‘5%’ info flow,

very sparingly used, to avoid overconstraining the system).

Evo Devo Cosmological Natural Selection with Intelligence (Evo Devo CNS-I)

– “We are a small piece of the universe, produced by the universe to improve (evo), understand (info), and care for (devo) the universe, our world, and ourselves.

Developmental Singularity Hypothesis– “Everyone else is doing this, and we will meet many of them

very soon, in astronomical time.”– Predictions: CETI beacons will never be constructed. SETI

fossils will be found. ‘Our destiny is density.’



Summary

• Accelerating Change Phenomenon• U-Shaped Curve of Change Phenomenon• Informational Computational Universe Hypothesis

- STEM+IC Universe- Dissipative structures seem particularly important.

• Evo Devo Universe Hypothesis- EID Model, CNS, and CNS-I- 95/5 Rule, SOE Intelligence Partitioning Rule- Processes of Universal Development

○ Hierarchy, Terminal Differentiation, Ergodicity Evol. Convergence, STEM Compression

• Developmental Singularity Hypothesis- Falsifiable Predictions (STEM Compression, SETI)

• Evo Devo Foresight- Global, Social and Personal Implications

Discussion

evo devo universe? a framework for speculations on cosmic culture evo devo universe 2008 october...

Documents