Cosmological Artificial Selection: Creation out of Something?

2010

Found Sci

I discuss some of the speculations proposed by Stewart (Found Sci 15(4): 395-409, 2010a). These include the following propositions: the cooperation at larger and larger scales, the existence of larger scale processes, the enhancement of the tuning as the universe cycle repeats, the transmission between universes and the motivations to produce a new universe.Keywords Far future · Evolution of the universe · Fine-tuning I do largely share Stewart's general vision of cosmic evolution and development, and I very much value the speculations he proposes. Connecting in such a coherent way intelligence and cosmic evolution is rarely attempted, and even more rarely so inspiring. The significance of the worldview outlined here is potentially of paramount importance for the future of intelligence.Obviously, it would be boring for the reader to state all the points were we do agree. Therefore, I will focus on (relatively minor) issues where our positions diverge, to sharpen and extend them or hopefully to reach agreement.As Stewart acknowledges, many themes in this paper are speculative: "the difficulty we face in trying to evaluate these possibilities at our current scale and intelligence is likely to be similar to the challenge facing an intelligent bacterium in our gut that is trying to make sense of the social interactions we engage in." Speculating on those issues can easily lead us very far. For this reason, we need to have clear ideas on how and why we speculate. I distinguish three kinds of speculations to navigate into their variety: Rottiers (2010) did also comment on Stewart's (2010a) paper. See (Stewart 2010b) for replies.

Section: The Tuning Is Enhanced As the Cycle Repeatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Some Speculations Concerning the Far Future of Intelligent Civilizations

2010

Found Sci

“…Milan Ćirković [13] and I both converged on this conclusion. Ćirković used the metaphor of sailing the archipelago of possible universes; I proposed to perform simulations of possible universes, an endeavor called Artificial Cosmogenesis (or ACosm, see [62]; [64]; and also [60]; [61] for critiques; and [66] for replies). Such simulations would enable us not only to understand our own universe (with "real-world modelling", or processes-as-we-know-them) but also other possible universes (with "artificial-world modelling", or processes-asthey-could-be).…”

Section: Gregory Chaitin ([12] P339)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial Cosmogenesis: A New Kind of Cosmology

Emergence, Complexity and Computation

2013

This paper introduces foundations for a new kind of cosmology. We advocate that computer simulations are needed to address two key cosmological issues. First, the robustness of the emergence of complexity, which boils down to ask: "what would remain the same if the tape of the universe were replayed?" Second, the much debated fine-tuning issue, which requires to answer the question: "are complex universes rare or common in the space of possible universes?" We argue that computer simulations are indispensable tools to address those two issues scientifically. We first discuss definitions of possible universes and of possible cosmic outcomes -such as atoms, stars, life or intelligence. This leads us to introduce a generalized Drake-like equation, the Cosmic Evolution Equation. It is a modular and conceptual framework to define research agendas in computational cosmology. We outline some studies of alternative complex universes. However, such studies are still in their infancy, and they can be fruitfully developed within a new kind of cosmology, heavily supported by computer simulations, Artificial Cosmogenesis. The appendix [section 9] provides argumentative maps of the paper's main thesis.

“…This modeling capacity can be used to understand not only our own universe, but also other possible universes. The radical proposal of CAS is that in order to avoid the effect of the second law of thermodynamics, those toy-universes could become a blueprint for a new universe (Vidal 2008b;Vidal 2010;Vaas 2010;Vidal 2011). However, this scenario has more than a scientific aspect.…”

Section: Where Are We Going?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Metaphilosophical Criteria for Worldview Comparison

2012

Metaphilosophy

Philosophy lacks criteria to evaluate its philosophical theories. To fill this gap, we introduce nine criteria to compare worldviews, classified in three broad categories: objective criteria (objective consistency, scientificity, scope) subjective criteria (subjective consistency, personal utility, emotionality) and intersubjective criteria (intersubjective consistency, collective utility, narrativity). We first define what a worldview is and expose the heuristic used in our quest for criteria. After describing each criterion individually, we show what happens when each of them is violated. From the criteria, we derive assessment tests to compare and improve different worldviews. These include the is-ought, ought-act and is-act first-order tests; the critical and dialectical second-order tests; the mixed-questions and firstsecond-order synthetical third order tests; and the we-I, we-it and it-I tests. Then we apply these criteria and tests to a concrete example, comparing the Flying Spaghetti Monster deity with Intelligent Design. As another application, we draw more general fruitful suggestions for the science-and-religion dialog.