Ming the Mechanic:

The NewsLog of Flemming Funch
 Biocosm2006-02-20 23:22
picture by Flemming Funch

Biocosm - "The new scientific theory of evolution: intelligent life is the architect of the universe".
Why is the universe bio-friendly? Bioastronomy, once an intriguing and speculative sideline, has become a major focus for cosmologists. James N. Gardner presents a startling hypothesis for how our apparently bio-friendly universe began and what its ultimate destiny will be. Originally presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals, his radical “Selfish Biocosm” hypothesis proposes that life and intelligence have not emerged in a series of Darwinian accidents but are essentially hardwired into the cycle of cosmic creation, evolution, death, and rebirth. He argues that the destiny of highly evolved intelligence (perhaps our distant progeny) is to infuse the entire universe with life, eventually to accomplish the ultimate feat of cosmic reproduction by spawning one or more “baby universes,” which will themselves be endowed with life generating properties. In this explanation of the role of life in the cosmos, Gardner presents an eloquent and lucid synthesis of the most recent advances in physics, cosmology, biology, biochemistry, astronomy, and complexity theory. These disciplines increasingly find themselves approaching the frontier of what was once the exclusive province of philosophers and theologians. Gardner’s Selfish Biocosm hypothesis challenges both Darwinists and advocates of intelligent design, and forces us to reconsider how we ourselves are shaping the future of life and the cosmos.
Ah, great!! Very refreshing that a science guy can get away with that, and manages to get it through peer-reviewed mine fields. The world must indeed be changing. And it is funny and ironic that science might end up in a roundabout way with such a spiritual view of life and the universe. I don't really care how it happens, but I'm all for it. Of course the universe is intelligent and inherently generating life. For that matter, that's the only view that can integrate science and spirituality. I've ordered the book.

[< Back] [Ming the Mechanic]



21 Feb 2006 @ 13:19 by b : Of couse it does come to us
to shape our future as human beings here on Earth. Because the Universe seems to be constantly moving out from a point of origin this gives rise to the thought of source. Searching zero point field or zero oint energy supports the concept of a source of existence that is constant in everything, all over
and every where. First distinction for us humans should be to define ourselves.
We appear to be a composite of body, mind, spirit.  

21 Feb 2006 @ 13:33 by vibrani : Science
Science has been merging with spirituality/metaphysics for some time now. That's not new at all - see "What the Bleep" films, or the Discovery channel, or PBS, for examples of this cooperation and co-creation. I do think that in order for this planet not to be destroyed involves a balance of responsible (and compassionate) science and technology with spirituality. What this guy proposes about infusing the entire universe with life well, this is a reality already. Just in our local universe we can go back to its origins in Lyra where certain beings did create life in the physical form that spread out to other planets and stars. Nothing new with this idea. Life includes planets, stars, comets, asteroids, gravity, as well as animal and human/humanlike life forms. New universes are created all of the time. But there is a balance going on, too, and I wonder if he talks about that. As new universes are created, others are transformed/destroyed, stars are born and others die, orbits change. Consciousness is the main role player. There must be a reason - and it's not just to populate.  

21 Feb 2006 @ 15:01 by ming : Science and Spirituality
Yeah, nothing exactly new at all. And lots of people have written books that sort of merge science and metaphysics, through quantum physics, string theory, holographic universe, etc, into a coherent cosmology. And, sure, I've been into that for decades too. But, even when the authors have been scientists, other scientists would usually be able to dismiss it as somewhat frivolous speculation. And particularly that thing about the universe being intelligent has been something that science types would tend to break out in hives over. So, what might be new might be that it would be ok to talk about universal intelligence in science journals. And that it is ok to say that evolution isn't just random stumbling about, without it suddenly being theology.  

6 Mar 2006 @ 16:04 by nraye @ : Platonic backtrack
An assumption mistakingly I believe was made in Renaissance as the classical texts emerged from Constantinople. The ruling families able to sponsor "scientifc" investigations did so from the perspective, that "we have everything we need to live in luxury - and how can we possibly interfere in the order of things, we are creating beauty". I am not sure yet when Frankinstein entered the Scientific stage, but I believe that the Science that Plato strived to defend against Poetry and Art, is a completely different Science to the one we have inherited today which is squeezing out the last Lifetrons of our existence. The Science that he was vehemently defending was indeed really beautiful and above, once comprehended, that of poetry and art, as it was poetry and art in its very self, this his science and a nurturer of Life. It being the only science going at the time, hardly anyone ever spoke of it in striking enough terms. In addition to which we are subject to mind sets at a particular level, unable to recognise Platonic everyday acceptances.

Ming, as much as one would like to accept such detailed ideas, I believe that unless a majority can comprehend basic notions of human standards, there will be no reaching out to the stars, and definitely no whisking up of new galaxies. The only one visible to the naked eye is -

Oh Andromeda, low in the Western night sky
While gazing North from the Antipodes,
Show us your lights a little brighter
Soon they say you will have many siblings
By our fair hands  

Other stories in
2009-11-01 16:35: Seven questions that keep physicists up at night
2008-10-14 20:33: Where are the podcars?
2008-07-05 00:08: Self-Organized Criticality
2008-05-16 13:34: The Universe as God
2008-01-11 19:00: Richard Dawkins comes to call
2007-12-02 21:10: An E8 theory of everything
2007-09-27 00:46: Parallel universes are a bit more real
2007-07-05 23:40: What happened before the big bang
2007-06-27 00:58: Naïve realism
2007-05-26 02:26: Mars cave

[< Back] [Ming the Mechanic] [PermaLink]? 

Link to this article as: http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-001637.htm
Main Page: ming.tv