1. Introduction

The underlying paradigm for cosmology is theoretical physics. How could it be enriched with a biological paradigm?

To understand our universe with all its complexity, we need suitable cognitive tools. Biology describes systems with the greatest structural and functional complexity, thus we could look to apply biological insights to cosmology. Analogies are fundamental and very powerful cognitive tools, provided that we are aware of their limitations. (for e.g. an analogy is not a proof, see (Holyoak & Thagard 1995)).

Our general hypothesis is that the Universe exhibits processes which are both contingently adaptive (evolutionary) and statistically predictable (developmental).

Application to the fine-tuning problem

Definition: Why do the parameters of the standard models of particle physics and cosmology fall in a very tiny box in the space of parameters in which there are stars and organic chemistry?

Fine-Tuning (FT) argument: If any of a number of parameters, both fundamental constants and cosmological parameters were slightly different, no complexity of any sort would come into existence. See (Leslie 1989) for a good review.

2. Lee Smolin’s theory of Cosmological Natural Selection

(CNS)CNS is a variation on the multiverse hypothesis

attempting to solve the FT problem by introducing a biologically-inspired paradigm. (Smolin 1997).

In CNS, the concept of natural selection is extended to the largest scale of space and time: the universe. CNS proposes a Darwinian evolution of universes whose constants are fine-tuned for black hole generation, a prediction that can in principle be falsified.

Biology (yesterday) Physics (nowadays)(1) Why are the

different species as they are?(1’) Why are the

constants as they are?(2) Species are timeless. (2’) Constants are timeless.

Table 1. The situation of nowadays physics is analogous to the biologists’ before Darwin. (Smolin 1997, 260).

Variation: Black holes give birth to new universes by producing the equivalent of a Big Bang, which produces a baby universe with slightly different constants.

Selection: The differential success in self-reproduction of universes via their black holes.

3. An Evo-Devo Universe extension of CNS

Limitations of CNS• The roles of life and intelligence in the universe are incidental.• No proposed mechanism of heredity.

Components DescriptionBiology

(cell)Cosmology(universe)

BlueprintPlan for the

construction of the offspring

The information contained in the

DNA

Physical laws and constants

Factory Carries out the construction Cell The universe at large

Controller Ensures the factory follows the plan

The regulatory mechanisms of the

mitosis

A cosmic ethics, aiming at universe

reproduction.

Duplicating machine

Transmits a copy of the blueprint to the

offspring

The reproduction of the DNA

Highly evolved intelligence

Table 2. Components of a von Neumann’s (1948) self-reproducing automaton, with a description of each component, and examples in biology (the cell) and in cosmology (the universe). We see clearly the limits of

CNS model, which is not specifying what the controller and the duplicating machine are.

As long as this highly evolved intelligence plays a « more-than-CNS » role in modification of parameters in the next cycle, we can posit a reason for intelligence to emerge thus linking intelligence with the universe, i.e. answering to problem (5) above. (Crane 1994; Harrisson 1995; Smart 1999; Baláz 2001; Gardner 2003)

4. DiscussionAren’t God, TOE, RM, CNS and EDU models

all highly speculative? ... Indeed, they are!• Theology - the problem is to find a suitable interpretation of God.• Science - the problem is that we have no observational and experimental support, at present. How can we imagine these theories to be testable?

Speculative philosophy

Tackling problems without observational and experimental support is very different from a traditional scientific enquiry. How to best answer those kinds of problems?

This becomes a problem of speculative philosophy that we can tackle by constructing comprehensive and coherent worldviews. (Vidal 2007).

Evo Devo Universe:towards a biological paradigm for cosmology

Clément VidalDepartment of Philosophy, Free University of Brussels (VUB)

Evolution, Complexity and Cognition group (ECCO) and Centrum Leo Apostel (CLEA)

What scope for

cosmology? (1) Why do the laws of physics have the form they do? (FT)

(2) Why do boundary conditions have the form they do? (FT) (3) Why do laws of physics exist? (ontology, teleology) (4) Why does anything exist? (ontology, metaphysics) (5) Why does the universe allow the existence of intelligent life?

(link intelligence-universe)

Cosmology also has to deal with this extended agenda, raising deep philosophical questions.

Adapded from Ellis (2005, section 8.2).

7. References

Balázs, B.A. (2001) The Cosmological Replication Cycle , the Extraterrestrial Paradigm and the Final Anthropic Principle, in Proceedings of the 12th Congress of the International Association “Cosmos and Philosophy”.Carr, B. (2007) Universe or multiverse. Cambridge University Press. Craig, W. L. (1999) The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe. Astrophysics and Space Science 269-270, p723-740.Crane, L. (1994) Possible implications of the quantum theory of gravity. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9402104.Ellis, G. F. R. (2006) Philosophy of cosmology, In Handbook in Philosophy of Physics, Ed J Butterfield and J Earman (Elsevier, 2006), 1183-1285.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602280 Gardner, J. N. (2003) Biocosm. The New Scientific Theory of Evolution: Intelligent Life is the Architect of the Universe. Inner Ocean Publishing. Greene, B. (2000) The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory. Vintage.Harrison, E. (1995) The natural selection of universes containing intelligent life. Quart. J. Roy. Astronom. Soc., 36, 193-203.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996QJRAS..37..369B Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1995) Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Chapter 8, The Analogical Scientist. The MIT press.Leslie, J. (1989) Universes. Routledge.Smart, J. (1999) Introduction to the Developmental Singularity Hypothesis. Retrieved from AccelerationWatch.com 15 Jan, 2008.Smolin, L. (1997) The Life of the Cosmos. Oxford University Press.Vidal. C. (2007) An Enduring Philosophical Agenda: Worldview Construction as a Philosophical Method. Submitted to Zygon, the Journal of Religion & Science.

http://ecco.vub.ac.be/~clement/vidal2007-wp.pdf von Neumann, J. (1948) The general and logical theory of automata, In: Cerebral mechanisms in behavior : the Hixon symposium. Lloyd A. Jeffress. Reprint in John von

Neumann, Collected Works, ed. A. H. Taub. http://www.dna.caltech.edu/courses/cs191/paperscs191/vonneumann1951.pdf

6. Further informationhttp://www.evodevouniverse.comhttp://clement.vidal.philosophons.com

Please feel free to harshly criticize to... clement.vidal@philosophons.com

Acknowledgments: Many thanks to my colleague John Smart co-founder of the EDU community for his rich and valuable feedback. EDU is supported by The Complex Systems Institute, Paris (ISC-PIF).

Image credits: Leonardo da Vinci, Hubble Space Telescope (The Antennae Galaxies-NGC 4038-4039). Detailed credits for the tree of life: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/life_anims_verts.shtml

5. ConclusionWe showed that being inspired by a biological

paradigm can bring new insights into cosmology. This was shown through Smolin’s solution to the fine-tuning problem which we critically examined to propose an extension of it. We suggested that the problem of the speculative nature of the scientific theories explored can be reduced by searching for tests by simulations.

Going further with some plausible implications of an EDU model on FT

God: An evo-devo universe doesn’t need the hypothesis of an extrinsic designer whose nature could not be understood.

TOE: The EDU model predicts a TOE can never emerge. As in biology, there will not be enough information (too many degrees of freedom) within any universe to uniquely specify initial parameters and constants. Yet by adding the constraint of an extrapolated multiversal environment (real or simulated) we may come to understand the fine-tuned values much better.

Random Multiverse: The RM model is replaced by a multiversal environment, whose evolution will be extensively constrained by the developmental cycle. EDU models may greatly pare down the number of possible universes, in a way that is in principle testable via simulation.

CNS: Evo-devo extensions of the CNS model of universe reproduction and development, by proposing the missing hereditary mechanism (controller and duplicating machine) may provide a functional role for black holes and highly evolved civilization, and possibly make falsifiable predictions.

Classical approaches to the FT problem:

1. God God creates the laws and constants of our universe ab initio, in a fine-tuned manner. (e.g. (Craig 1999)).

2. Theory of everything (TOE)Dream of a theory that would decide the values of all the constants in a determined manner, thus there would be no fine-tuning. (e.g (Greene 2000)).

3. Random multiverse (RM) with observer selection effect.There exists a huge (possibly infinite) number of universes, each with different, randomly-generated parameters and the fact that our universe appears fine-tuned is just an observational selection effect. (Carr 2007).