DAVID BIRNBAUM PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
DAVID BIRNBAUM PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Evolution: the revolutionary hypothesis of metaphysicist David Birnbaum
The Galapagos Islands are an archipelago of volcanic islands distributed on either side of the Equator in the Pacific Ocean 575 miles west of Ecuador. The archipelago, which is on-the-move at a rate of about 2.5 inches per year, sits atop a volcanic hotspot, which inordinately impacts the environment of the particular island passing-over the hotspot.
The islands are famous for both the voyage of the British ship Beagle which visited in 1835 with naturalist Charles Darwin aboard – and for the related phenomena – the vast number of (often extraordinary) species unique to the islands themselves. The islands and their rich habitats are consequently famously known as the inspiration for Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and its Natural Selection Theory offshoot.
Per the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (contemporary Theory of Evolution), life evolves gradually over time; according to the Natural Selection sub-theory, the mechanism of Natural Selection is that life evolves based on the advantaged and most adaptive being most likely to breed and, thus, continue the species. When mutations arise that have an advantage, according to the sub-theory, this mutation is propagated onward, and becomes part of the species – or a sub-species may branch off. Thus compete/survive/reproduce is the core of the Natural Selection sub-theory; the sub-theory is often called survival-of-the-fittest – but the main competition may actually be on a genetic level.
To David Birnbaum, metaphysicist and author of the three-part cosmological treatise Summa Metaphysica, Darwin’s take-away from the Galapagos is at least slightly off-the-mark. Not that Birnbaum argues against the role of Natural Selection; only that (a) it appears that the Galapagos bio-systems were shoehorned into an already existing theory Darwin wanted to support; (b) the islands were a poor choice to support his theory; and (c) the Galapagos bio-system at-work is actually rather a better support for Birnbaum’s Theory of Potential than for either classic Darwinism – or for the neo-Darwinism synthesis.
According to the neo-Darwinian synthesis, what is the core mechanism of Natural Selection? Very simply (and perhaps crudely) put – survivability.
Diverging from the conventional wisdom, Birnbaum posits that survivability is but one of several inter-related criteria for the direction Natural Selection will choose. In other words, per Birnbaum, survivability is necessary but far from sufficient. See www.PotentialismTheory.com.
Birnbaum adds-in (his coined term) Complexification (C+) into the Natural Selection mix. Per Birnbaum (his hypothesized) Complexification is at the core of Natural Selection.
And just what is C+?
Complexification is posited as the universal drive towards ever-greater complexity/sophistication/richness/integration/variety/wondrousness.
Thus, per Birnbaum Natural Selection is far, far more than just survivability.
Birnbaum points-out that Natural Selection cum survival-of-the-fittest (alone) cannot at all adequately explain the path of Evolution and certainly not even the wondrous and distinct Galapagos bio-system. Per Birnbaum, to assume that surviving to mate (or some variation thereof, genetic or otherwise) is the sole catalyst of Evolution is rather over-simplistic (read: wrong); he asks – How does survival-of-the-fittest get us to Beethoven?
Rather, what Birnbaum discerns in the Galapagos is a prime example of a more sophisticated explanation for Evolution: its inexorable quest for first Complexification (C+) and ultimately for Extraordinariation (E+).
Potentialism describes the infinite Quest for Potential as the central, cosmic drive of the universe. This Q4P, as he calls it for short, instigates the cosmic order, and then drives it forward.
On the intermediate level, the universe strives towards greater and greater levels of what Birnbaum coins as Complexification (shorthand: C+). C+ is the drive for ever-greater complexity/sophistication/richness/integration/variety/wondrousness.
In turn, this C+ drives the universe towards what Birnbaum coins as Extraordinariation (shorthand: E+). Extraordinariation is a goal/horizon of sublime and utter super-Complexification – both in form and quality (see www.Extraordinariation.com).
Extraordinariation would include, but not be limited to, ultimate –grandeur…elegance…beauty…symmetry…fulfillment….consciousness…harmony…artistry… symphony…spirituality…perfection…humanitarianism…romancing… love…parenting…meaning…altruism…mercy…
The three key components noted just-above, in turn combine into the SuperLaw of Potentialism:
Q4P > C+ > E+
Quest for Potential > Complexification > Extraordinariation
According to Birnbaum, the universe’s universal and infinite drive towards its own maximal/optimal Potential can be witnessed in the day-to-day increases in Complexification of everything in the universe. We can witness the theory at-work in the (historical) formation of atoms, then molecules, as well as in the birth of the stars and galaxies – and, indeed, in the birth and development of the spectrum of life on our very own Earth.
focus: Complexification (C+) > Extraordinariation (E+)
In Birnbaum’s Potentialism, Complexification (C+) is the workhorse of the universe as the universe seeks higher and higher levels of its own Potential, this intermediate process is expressed as Complexification. The descriptors are vast, but the important to understand is that Complexification is a description of something far broader than simple, physical complexity – it is an overarching metaphysical concept.
It is this C+ that is so readily witnessed at work on the Galapagos. The bio-systems of the islands are not defined by tenaciously competing organisms; quite the contrary is actually the case on the Galapagos, which are relatively harmonious. Rather, the islands are defined by the extraordinary – Birnbaum’s core theme: giant tortoises, exotic iguana and surreal-colored seabirds.
When David Birnbaum stepped-foot on Galapagos in December 2006, 171 years after Charles Darwin, Birnbaum was indeed first struck by the unusual harmony of its species – sea lions occupying almost the same space as iguana, for instance. No salient survivability contest here for sure. The Galapagos are almost a test tube for harmony – and for the extraordinary.
Consider this: within every life-form is the infinite forms of complexity it may express. That something will increase in complexity is a foregone conclusion; it cannot help but do so in response to the drive of its Q4P; but the precise form that complexity will take is infinite in possibilities as well. See www.TheoryCore.com.
What the Galapagos Islands offer are distinct and discrete areas of island causally removed from one another. Each has its own unique environment and ecosystem. This allows the expression of Q4P to be different for each zone of the archipelago. Each species in its own unique environment can grow in Complexification, following its own path towards E+. Not only that, but as C+ seeks optimization, a creature will naturally seek the most harmonious complexity in relation to its own proximate environment (the integration component of C+).
To think of this expression of Evolution as nothing more than mutations passed down through selective breeding towards increased survivability is missing ‘the main event’ of the Galapagos: the thrust towards the extraordinary.
Consider this. At some point the animals – even according to Darwin – came from common stock of far fewer species. Yes, it can be argued that their adaptations made them more in tune with their environments. But, the survivability hypothesis glosses over a very important fact. Those base species were there and probably doing just fine at one point. They didn’t need to adapt to survive. So, if they all survived just fine as they were, what was the catalyst for their change?
Darwin would have us believe that it was all driven by the strongest, mutated creatures out-surviving, out-competing or out-breeding its non-mutated brethren. By contrast, Potentialism answers the question of what that catalyst was: Q4P. C+ happens because it is inexorable. It is that simple. C+ is a feature of the universal Quest for Potential. Unlike the gladiatorial archipelago Darwin would have us believe it to be, the Galapagos is a testament to the beauty and creative power of Complexification – a precursor of Extraordinariation down-the-road.
The Summa series:
Summa Metaphysica I: Religious Man: God and Evil (Ktav, 1988);
Summa Metaphysica II: Spiritual Man: God and Good (New Paradigm Matrix, 2005);
and Summa Metaphysica III: Secular Man: The Transcendent Dynamic (New Paradigm Matrix, 2014).
Summa Metaphysica has been –
# the prime focus of a major international academic conference (see www.Conference1000.com)
# a Course Text at over a dozen colleges (see www.SummaCourseText.com )
# the focus of over seventy feature articles in 2013-2014 alone (see www.SummaCoverage.com).
Via his revolutionary true Theory of Everything (see www.TTOE1000.com), David Birnbaum has instigated a major and possibly unstoppable global paradigm challenge (see www.ParadigmChallenge.com). Birnbaum himself is either the author or the editor-in-chief of several noteworthy series (see www.major1000.com).
DAVID BIRNBAUM PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
DAVID BIRNBAUM PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
* DAVID BIRNBAUM PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE *
September 17, 2014
Two Dynamic Contemporary Cosmological Theories:
David Birnbaum’s Potentialism and Guth/Linde’s Cosmic Inflation
Two exciting – and interlocking – cutting-edge cosmology-related theories are making headlines recently: Potentialism and Cosmic Inflation. What is perhaps more fascinating though is the inherent interconnectedness of these two theories. While Inflation might still be more theoretical than Potentialism, introduced by David Birnbaum in his three-part work Summa Metaphysica I (Ktav, 1988), Summa Metaphysica II (New Paradigm Matrix, 2005), and Summa Metaphysica III (New Paradigm Matrix, 2014) – recent discoveries by astronomers as helping to solidify Inflation with empirical evidence. Let’s take a look at these two ground-breaking concepts and see how they might connect (see SummaMetaphysica.com).
Q4P∞ The Infinite Quest for Infinite Potential. This represents the universe’s innate drive towards fulfilling its true potential. Also commonly denoted as Q4P∞.
E+ Extraordinariation. The other side of the Q4P∞ equation, Extraordinariation represents the building complexity of the universe (see Extraordinariation.com).
0-Point The Zero Point represents the universal pre-Big Bang. In physics terms, it is the pre-known universe, when all Planck values were under 1.
SuperLaw of Potentialism: Q4P∞ → E+ The fundamental, basic drive of the cosmic dynamic. This represents the Quest for Infinite Potential which drives the cosmic order towards greater and greater complexity towards its own Extraordinariation and is the core of Potentialism.
The Inflationary hypothesis was developed in the 1980s by physicists Alan Guth and Andrei Linde. Expanding space – Inflation states that space is expanding. This is commonly misunderstood as the idea that things in space are expanding, or moving away from each other. However, Inflation states that space itself is expanding, which would make even stationary objects move away from each other.
Speed of Light – Inflation predicts that galactic clusters move away from each other at faster than the speed of light.
Asymmetry – Inflation predicts that quantum fluctuations are inherent in the universe and give rise to the current order we see – solar systems and galaxies.
Big Bang – Inflation contends that the Big Bang not only represents an expansion of matter and space itself, but also the physical dimensions of our universe as a whole.
So how do these theories meet up? Not far from each other, actually – at least on most accounts.
On the origin of the cosmos. Potentialists refer to the 0-Point as the origin of our current universe. Inflation theory cites the beginning as the Big Bang. Really, the only difference between the two is that Potentialism can describe a pre-Big Bang. Meaning, Potentialism wraps-around Inflation Theory.
Inflation recognizes a singularity that “ignited” to give birth to the universe. Potentialism does as well. The only difference is that Potentialism can give meaning to what ignited the Big Bang – Q4P. That is, the cosmos came into being as the universe seeks to balance an ever increasing equation: Q4P∞ → E+
The speed of Light and expanding space. Notwithstanding spurious charges from reactionary academics to the contrary, Potentialists hold that all the universe must be governed by physical and metaphysical law. Whether describing human intelligence or the orbit of a planet, everything follows the natural laws of the universe. Inflation theory points out that the early universe expanded faster than the speed of light. Indeed, relative to one another, objects in the universe are still moving apart faster than the speed of light.
This would seem an intractable problem between Potentialism and Inflation. However, you need to understand fully the mechanics of Inflation. Describing objects as “moving” faster than the speed of light is a misnomer and, at best, an imperfect understanding of the mechanics. In Inflation, objects do not “move” faster than the speed of light. While galactic clusters might move apart from one another, their speed is within the rules of physics. The key is Expansion. Think of it this way. We are in Galactic cluster A and we view Galactic cluster B. When we observe B it seems to be moving away at, say (arbitrarily) half the speed of light. A cluster twice as far away, Galactic cluster C might appear to be moving away at the speed of light. But to B, both A and C are seen as moving at half the speed of light.
From A it appears: A → B →→ C
From B it appears: A ← B → C
From C it appears: A ←← B ← C
What this tells us is that the distance between the galactic clusters is increasing. The clusters themselves are not moving so much as the distance between them is being created. This linchpin part of Inflation is what qualifies Inflation as not violating any rules of Potentialism. What appears to break the laws of physics, only appears to do so.
Asymmetry and Q4P∞ → E+. Again, we see an apparent difference in theories. Potentialism is based on a balancing on energies, Q4P and E+. By contrast, Inflation is hinged on the theory of asymmetry. Once again though, these differences are largely a misunderstanding. Q4P and E+ are integrally interrelated to one another. It is the need to keep the equation balanced that causes Q4P and E+ to drive one another to higher states of infinite complexity.
In Inflation, asymmetry describes a quantum fluctuation which, in theory, can create matter. But looking into quantum theory, asymmetry is not a stable state. In fact, it is predicted by Potentialism – Whenever asymmetry might occur and produce, spontaneously, matter, it is automatically balanced by the creation of anti-matter. So long as the net results cancel each other out, so no scientific laws have been broken. Inflation hypothesizes that this could have been the beginning of the universe – a quantum fluctuation. Usually the matter and anti-matter is such instances collide and destroy one another. However, if the universe was expanding at that point, the matter and anti-matter could have been too far apart to annihilate each other instantly, giving rise to a chain reaction that resulted in the universe (see SummaCoverage.com).
Looking at if from this perspective, this is perfectly in line with the Potentialism duality model. Potentialists agree that the universe is fundamentally dichotomous – light and dark, male and female, good and evil. On an integral level, dichotomy has promulgated throughout the universe. That Inflation theory would acknowledge such as the beginnings of the very cosmos earns it a nod of approval from Potentialism. Potentialism simply names the phenomena: Q4P∞ → E+.
Dovetailing: Recent hi-level academic works dovetailing with Birnbaum’s Theory of Potential (see www.PotentialismTheory.com ) include the following: Programming the Universe (Knopf, 2006) by Professor of Quantum Mechanics Seth Lloyd of MIT; Mind & Cosmos (Oxford Press, 2012) by Professor of Philosophy & Law Thomas Nagel of NYU; Our Mathematical Universe (Knopf, 2014) by Professor of Physics Max Tegmark of MIT.
DAVID BIRNBAUM PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
DAVID BIRNBAUM PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
• DAVID BIRNBAUM PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE •
The Free Lunch: Hawking v. Birnbaum
August 19, 2014
Stephen Hawking envisions the universe as, fundamentally, a free lunch. Citing the physics of dark matter, he notes that the universe can simply appear out of nothing, so long as the matter and dark matter are equal – a net zero equation. To Hawking, this means there is no need for God or a divine spark to have created the universe.
Not so, says David Birnbaum. Birnbaum, author of the critically acclaimed, 3 part treaties – Summa Metaphysica says this is a gross over-simplification of the universe as a whole. In fact, there are two fundamental issues Hawking does not address: 1) the reliance of the divine on justification and 2) Hawking’s willful avoidance of complexity.
The first problem is rather obvious. Hawking contends that that there is no need for God or the divine spark, so he – in fact – doesn’t exist. It is very often assumed that the religious are mislead because of a lack of scientific understanding. But, it seems, the same can be said of the scientific in their lack of understanding of religion.
At the core of religion is faith. It is not factually based. Fact actually undermines faith. How does this fit into the argument? Well, ironically, if you could prove God must exist, then you have undermined faith itself. By definition, the universe must actually be possible without God for him to exist. That concept might sound strange for those who are not religious scholars – but Hawking is tilting at windmills if thinks he’s stumbled on some great truth of the universe. In fact, to the religious scholar, he has only given them proof the universe is working as intended. Again, that might sound odd, but it is the truth and the way faith works.
But the root of the problem with this first presumption is Hawking seems to tie the existence of God to the necessity of his existence. This is sheer nonsense. You may as well prove bananas don’t exist because hula hoops do not require the existence of bananas. Hawking makes the fundamentally false assumption that the universe has to need the divine for it to exist.
The other issue Hawking misses is more self evident to the layman, though. Hawking fails to address the complexity of the universe itself. Net zero is fairly accepted theory for quantum mechanics. But spontaneous matter is just a nice side, pet theory of quantum physics. Granted, it is a theory. That Hawking throws this theory around as if it is a fact to demolish religion itself may be at least mildly offensive – but scientific hubris and overreach are common enough. And as far as Net Zero goes, current science states that it’s not actually zero. There is a slight imbalance in the equation – what Birnbaum calls the divine spark.
But, what is more audacious is Hawking’s refusal to acknowledge the complexity of the universe itself. Hawking seems to consider the spontaneous existence of electrons the equivalent of the existence of humanity, culture, complex molecular structure and emotion. Hawking willfully overlooks the overall complexity of the universe itself to support his theory.
And Birnbaum rightfully calls him on this as well as his assumptions on the nature of the divine itself. God does not need to exist to exist. It is that simple. Further, Hawking’s use of a sketchy, at best, and entirely unproven theory of quantum mechanics to explain the entirety of creation, which is wholly inadequate to explain the complexity of the universe we live in.