Private‎ > ‎

Lima-de-Faria

Is Lima-de-Faria's theory of autoevolution a valid paradigm for information flow?

http://forum.wolframscience.com/showthread.php?threadid=1705

Consider two paradigms for informational evolution:

Paradigm 1. Informational evolution occurs by natural selection of informational possibilities.
Paradigm 2. Informational evolution occurs by natural conformity to simple finite automata rules for information.
Answers are not obtained by putting the wrong question and thereby begging the real one. – Felix Frankfurter
If M-theory and NKS Chapter 9 do not solve the problems of the infinite self-energy of the electron and the ambiguous self-energy, then what does solve those two problems? Are hidden determinism and alternate universes the only way to justify a computational method for M-theory?
If we can really understand the problem, the answer will come out of it, because the answer is not separate from the problem. – Jidda Krishnamurti
Is one of our greatest problems to understand precisely how and precisely why human beliefs about science, divine power, free will, and human possibilities have evolved and shall evolve? Can an informational paradigm encompass physics and consciousness?
Everything deep is also simple and can be reproduced simply as long as its reference to the whole truth is maintained. – Albert Schweitzer
Are information representation, information flow, signal propagation, signal structure, and NKS conceptualizations the profoundest approach to understanding consciousness, spirituality, and human possibilities? Do information structure and natural structural laws determine information flow? Do information flow and natural transformational laws determine information structure?
In 2008, the king of Sweden knighted Lund University’s professor emeritus molecular cytogeneticist Antonio Lima-de-Faria for his experimental work elucidating the molecular organization of the chromosome and its evolutionary path. According to Lima-de-Faria, the chromosome, because of its rigid molecular organization, evades both selection and randomness. See http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0806/S00237.htm .
In his book “Evolution without Selection. Form and Function by Autoevolution,” Lima-de-Faria presents a paradigm for evolution without natural selection. He claims “Selection is a political not a scientific concept.” Lima-de-Faria’s theory of autoevolution “describes the transformation phenomenon which is inherent in the construction of matter and energy. This consequently produced and canalized the emergence of forms and functions.” There are three fundamental evolutions that preceded and channeled biological evolution. First, elementary particles evolved from Big Bang conditions. Chemical elements then evolved from elementary particles, and, after that evolution, minerals evolved from chemical elements. Mineral evolution profoundly influenced biological evolution. Self-assembly is the empirical manifestation of autoevolution without natural selection. The evolution of biological species is a symbiosis of many autonomous evolutions. There are some significant empirical implications of the theory of autoevolution as contrasted with the theory of neo-Darwinism. Physical theory, not biological theory, needs fundamental modification. Seehttp://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho12.htm .
Informational Evolution Hypothesis: Many informational systems undergo informational evolution. Such systems might have many sub-systems that are also subject to informational evolution. There are two basic types of informational evolution: (1) Darwin-Kimura evolution of informational Watson-Crick recipes for building blocks and (2) Lima-de-Faria autoevolution of interacting, overlapping, and symbiotic Fredkin-Wolfram blueprints for finite automata possibilities. Darwin-Kimura evolution has natural selection processes and random drift processes that work fundamentally with information representation. Lima-de-Faria autoevolution has mechanistic self-assembly rules that work fundamentally with information flow.
Is informational evolution found everywhere in nature? Do thunderstorms and minerals evolve in ways that are computationally equivalent to the evolution of living organisms? Are Wolfram and Lima-de-Faria important thinkers who offer a non-Darwininian perspective on evolution? Is there computational equivalence with respect to informational evolution in weather, biology, traffic patterns, geological processes, and human social networks?
There is an aphorism that the weather has a mind of its own. That might be less silly than we imagine because the fluid motions that take place in the weather represent sophisticated computations, and I’m sure that they represent ones as sophisticated as the computations that go on in our brains. So in a sense, it’s like saying that there’s mind in all these things. I call this computational equivalence.
It’s an ultimate Copernican revolution. It used to be that we thought the earth was the center of the universe and it was really, really special. Copernicus showed that we’re not at the center at all. Still, we’ve managed this belief that that we’re special because of our computational ability. But we may not be special, or unique, in this regard either. – Stephen Wolfram, BusinessWeek interview, May 17, 2002http://www.businessweek.com/technol...020517_9591.htm .


Comments