Can *Physics* be evolutionary theory?

[s0cratus]

Can *Physics* be evolutionary theory?
===…
There is a conception of *evolutionary cosmology*
There is a conception of *evolutionary geology*
There is a conception of *evolutionary biology*
There is a conception of *evolutionary zoology*
There is a conception of *evolutionary psychology*
. . . . . . .etc
But there isn’t conception of *evolutionary physics*
#
There is a part of science which we call ‘ biophysics ‘.
Is it possible what one part of this science ‘ bio’ has evolution
and the other part of the same knowledge ‘ physics’ has not a
conception of evolution ?
#
Physics is the basis of cosmology, geology, biology . . . .etc
Physics is the basis of the existence.
Existence is an evolutionary physical process.
The evolution of nature can be affected only by the laws of physics.
And therefore the physical process of evolution can be explained
on the basis of the fundamental laws and formulas of Quantum Theory.
==..
Book: What is your dangerous idea?
/ Edited by John Brockman /
Article:
Seeing Darwin in the light of Einstein;
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin.
/ by Lee Smolin. /
===.
/ Page 115 /
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin suggests that
natural selection could act not only on living things
but on the properties defining the various species
of elementary particles.
/ Page 117 /
We physicists have now to understand Darwin’s lesson:
The only way to understand how one out of a vast number
of choices was made, which favors improbable structure,
is that is the result of evolution by natural selection.
/ Page 117 /
Now the only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature,
and for uniformity in general, is to suppose them results of evolution.
/ Page 118 /
And I believe that once this is achieved, Einstein and Darwin
will be understood as partners in the greatest revolution yet in science, . . .
/ Lee Smolin. /
=..
Can quantum particle evolve ?
Is it possible to explain the evolving process of quantum particle?
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
=.

 

[Architect]

Braaaaap.

 

[Moocow]

Actually... yes. If we have already accepted the possibility of multiple universes and infinite spacetime, then couldn't this one exist because its specific, physical parameters were the only combination that would allow it to continue? I'm not very knowledgeable but I recall reading that if any one known physical constant were even slightly different, the structure of our physical universe would become impossible. Suppose that there are an infinite number of other primordial universes with different constants... For all we know, they continue to pop in and out of existence within our own and it's just a matter of sheer improbability that another like ours occurs. Should that happen, another big bang would occur, possibly within our universe, possibly an unknowable distance away from it.
Well, just an idea. It's probably not that simple.

 

[s0cratus]

Quantum Evolution: How Physics . . .
/ by Johnjoe McFadden /

http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Evolu...102/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?showViewpoints=1

#
Customer Review
#
You've probably noticed that there is a growing flood of books that purport to explore the interface between the spooky scientific world of quantum physics and a range of other aspects of existence?
. . . .
Many in the sciences don't seem to know what to do with the quantum world. The physicists seem to wobble in their ability to create rich models at any level above that of the quantum phenomena themselves - perhaps because theirs can be a sparse world... the vast emptiness beyond the quark. They are often only comfortable "wrapping" the ultimately incomprehensible realities of the quantum world in merely mathematical or semantic models.

By Daryl Anderson


#
Overall the first part of the book is great in understanding that a paradigm shift must be made if the evolutionary hypothesis is to remain salient. If these shifts are not adopted we may see the Darwinian evolutionist go down in history as ideological frauds much like the flat-earthers. The second part of the book is lacking due to a misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics and trying to force science to fit a philosophical ideology.

By Enigma "Cheers""
===…

 

[Ada]

One thing that puzzles me is: evolutionary theory, in essence, is the product of an interaction between a plethora of particles (thereby macro level objects). It'll contradict the whole notion of 'fundamental' if the fundamental particles were to evolve.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Evolutionary Physics = complex adaptive systems. Dynamic complex adaptive systems, if we want to add another word.

 

[s0cratus]

Evolutionary Physics = complex adaptive systems.
Dynamic complex adaptive systems, if we want to add another word.

What/where is the essence of quantum evolutionary theory ?
In my opinion the essence is hidden in
* The theory of Quantum Electrodynamics*.
As the QED is studied interaction between energy
(photon/electron) with matter so it needed to pay attention
on these two parallel ways of quantum evolution.
==..
socratus

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

What/where is the essence of quantum evolutionary theory ?
In my opinion the essence is hidden in
* The theory of Quantum Electrodynamics*.
As the QED is studied interaction between energy
(photon/electron) with matter so it needed to pay attention
on these two parallel ways of quantum evolution.
==..
socratus

Evolution has traditionally been explained as essentially classical physics: Organisms react with and influence their environments on multiple temporal and spatial scales, in a very classical cause and effect nature.

The essence is in this kind of response: http://www.technologyreview.com/vie...ting-hints-at-entirely-new-form-of-computing/

"What’s more, this kind of computation may already be at work in nature. “Since the realization of this mechanism seems now relatively easy, it is an important question if it has been realized in light harvesting systems or is also present in other biological transport or optimization processes. Especially in the human brain,” they say."

- Though it's universal, not limited to biology or the human brain. -

Life, at all scales, possesses the same synergy between classical and quantum dynamics.

 

[s0cratus]

Evolution has traditionally been explained as essentially classical physics: . . . . . . .

Life, at all scales, possesses the same synergy between classical and quantum dynamics.

*The classic physicist * must all time keep in the mind the Planck's constant
because the life/evolution begins on quantum level: h , h*=h/2pi , QED.
==..
====.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Physics is approaching the goal of understanding every interaction and laws that govern these interactions. As a study of natural laws, physics is something beyond a theory. It is going to explain a real model.

What every theory has in common? Large stacks of paper printed with abstract ideas.
What *physics* does to theories on earth? Makes them fall, tears them down if they are too big and too abstract.

 

[Seed-Wad]

Physics aims to describe primitives and how they interact. This interaction leads to emergent features. Evolution is an emergent feature at a very high level (perhaps the highest?), where certain processes take over the environment through the totality of ever progressing interactions.

At the basis of physics lies mathematics, above physics lies chemistry, chemistry leads to things such as biology and geology (among others), above this level you find the proper objects and their environment in which evolution takes place. So in the end, evolution could be followed back into its mathematical origins. But this backtracing is hampered by the fact that we humans can only really use linear thought for logical thinking, while many of the interactions are non-linear, so going all the way back in a comprehensive manner gets extremely complicated, if not impossible, because of this.

A cool book about the possible impossibility of ever explaining an emergent process by its primitives because of non-linearity: Chaos: The Making of a New Science, by James Gleich

A more mathematical approach on possible non-physical primitives: A New Kind of Science, by Stephen Wolfram

 

[s0cratus]

At the basis of physics lies mathematics,
above physics lies chemistry,
chemistry leads to things such as biology and geology (among others),
above this level you find the proper objects and their environment
in which evolution takes place.
So in the end, evolution could be followed back into its mathematical origins.

*Pecking order of the sciences:
Biologists answer only to Chemists.
Chemists answer only to Physicists.
Physicists answer only to Mathematicians.
Mathematicians answer only to God. *
==..

But this backtracing is hampered by the fact that we humans can
only really use linear thought for logical thinking, while many of
the interactions are non-linear, so going all the way back in a
comprehensive manner gets extremely complicated,
if not impossible, because of this.

Maxwell created his EM theory using mechanical model with
small balls, springs, bearings, . . . . etc.
What kind of logic is such thinking?
Planck invented his constant (h) phenomenologically / intuitively.
Where is logic?
==.

 

[Seed-Wad]

(...)

Maxwell created his EM theory using mechanical model with
small balls, springs, bearings, . . . . etc.
What kind of logic is such thinking?
Planck invented his constant (h) phenomenologically / intuitively.
Where is logic?
==.[/QUOTE]

Intuitive thought is indeed non-linear, and a linear idea can sprout seemingly out of nowhere from out of this, but a non-linear concept an sich could never fully be understood by our linear mind (with this I mean the prefrontal cortex mostly; the consciousness).

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

but a non-linear concept an sich could never fully be understood by our a linear mind (with this I mean the prefrontal cortex mostly; the consciousness).

 

[s0cratus]

In his last autobiographic article Einstein wrote:
" . . . the discovery is not the matter of logical thought,
even if the final product is connected with the logical form".
#
When ( in which process ) physicists use linear or non-linear equations?

===.

 

[eagor]

Braaaaap.

"politely claps"

 

[s0cratus]

There isn't physics without geometry.
The evolution is going from simple to complex.
Then there is an object with the simplest geometrical form
Later ( in the process of evolution) this simplest g-form
became complex-topology form
#
Which forces can take place in this process?
Which mathematical framework can explain such process?
Is it possible to explain the difference
( between the simplest g-form and complex-topology form)
by non-linear equations ?

===...