Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!internal1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Kazmer Ujvarosy" 
Newsgroups: fidonet.astronomy
Subject: Breakthrough in Cosmology
Lines: 649
Message-ID: 
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 04:36:45 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.72.147.55
 21 May 2004 04:36:45 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 04:36:45 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com fidonet.astronomy:45

As you may know in light of the big bang paradigm's explanatory impotence
many physicists claim, including Leonard Susskind of Stanford University and
his colleagues, that the contemporary theoretical view of the Universe is so
unlikely that it must be logically flowed, and apparently we are missing
something fundamental. Susskind's team posits that some "unknown agent
intervened in the evolution [of the Universe] for reasons of its own" [see
www.nature.com/nsu/020812/020812-2.html].



You may be interested to know that the postulate that a perpetual Cosmic
Genome is the genotype of the phenotype Universe is in excellent agreement
with the accurate data we have. Remarkably, it also agrees with Maori
cosmology: "In the Maori world, whakapapa or lineage connects us all to
every aspect of the universe from the beginning of time -- to the very first
seed that created the universe. ... For it is the seed of life from which
all things grow and, through which all things are connected. It is the seed
that holds the potential of the universe" [see
www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/unff-planted-forestry-meeting/conference-papers/maori
-plantation-forestry.pdf].



Thus the fundamental "unknown agent" we are missing appears to be a Cosmic
Genome, which Genome generated the Universe for the production of human life
in its own image, similarly as a seed generates a tree for the production of
seeds in its own image. This Seed Cosmology tells us that the initial cause
of the Universe is a Cosmic Genome, and also the source of the basic forces
and laws of nature. Because structure formation is the basic quality of
life, the Cosmic Genome explains the cosmic system's formation, development
and energetic expansion, as well as the common origin of all forms of life
from that Cosmic Common Ancestor.



As you may see there is one crucial assumption in this Seed Cosmology: it
presupposes that the highest and most complex form of life that exists
constitutes the Initial Seed of the Universe. The purpose of the article
below is to point out that we have good empirical reasons to postulate that
this is the case.



Kazmer Ujvarosy

Academia Consulting





Breakthrough in Cosmology



By Kazmer Ujvarosy





Whereas it is amusing to watch scientists dealing with a living Universe
which they are dead sure is dead, at the same time it is annoying, and I
think it is about time to bring that message home.



Modern cosmology is still not a proper science because its mathematical
models have no predictive power. The aim of quantum cosmogenesis is to make
it predictive by finding a simple and convincing model that specifies
exactly the initial state of the Universe, and explains the generation of
the entire Universe in terms of that initial state. In essence the task is
to link the present cosmic structure or macrocosm to its microcosmic origin,
and to make predictions based on the knowledge of that microcosmic origin.



According to Stephen Hawking [see
www.hawking.org.uk/text/physics/quantum.html] the singularity theorems show
that our Universe had a quantum origin, or popped into existence in a
quantum blip out of nothing, and therefore we need a theory of quantum
gravity to describe the process of creation, and to make testable
predictions. Also he finds the Anthropic Principle helpful in finding a
model that represents our Universe.



I shall argue that the present Universe, which indubitably yields life forms
of great complexity, is reducible not to an inanimate initial singularity or
quantum blip, but rather to a single and most complex Initial Cosmic Genome.
If this Seed Theory of Creation is correct-i.e. that an Initial Cosmic
Genome generated our Universe for the purpose of self-reproduction,
similarly as a seed generates a tree for the production of seeds in its own
image-, then we don't need a theory of quantum gravity to describe the
process of creation, because the Universe does not have a quantum origin,
but a seed origin. Thus there is no need to treat the Universe as though it
were a quantum particle. Rather, we must treat it as a Cosmic Tree of Life
that unfolds from an Initial Cosmic Seed. We may consider the Initial Cosmic
Seed uncreated and immortal, because the Universe has no power to act upon
the Initial Seed of its own origin, just as a tree has no power to act upon
the initial seed of its own origin.





The Tree Model



Earlier findings that our Universe had a beginning are still being digested
by cosmology's mathematical models. If the Universe did not always exist,
where did it come from? What gave birth to the Universe? Birth or coming
into being is a sign of life. In our experience it implies invariably
unfoldment from a source of life. Animals unfold from reproductive cells,
and plants unfold from seeds. For some reason, however, the world's
celebrated cosmologists and theoreticians failed to give life a chance to
play any role in their models of the Universe. Their search for a plausible
explanation yielded a paradigm that attempts to explain the birth, structure
formation, and expansion, of our Universe in terms of a cataclysmic
explosion. The cause of that explosion, however, remains an open question.
In any case the big bang paradigm is still being celebrated all over the
world as the best model to represent our Universe.



It may be that only a fraction of the Universe is clearly living,
nevertheless it does not necessarily follow that an explosion caused the
cosmic system's birth, structure formation, and expansion. We know that more
than 97 percent of the oldest giant Sequoia's mass is considered to be
non-living, and we know that no one living today could have observed the
birth of that tree, yet no sensible person would speculate that an explosion
or quantum fluctuation caused its generation, and that purposeless
non-living forces drive that giant's structure formation and expansion.
Also, when we observe that our giant Sequoia develops leaves, flowers and
seeds, we do not speculate that the tree's dead materials managed to
generate primitive life forms; we do not speculate that those primitive
cells evolved into the complexity of leaves, the leaves into the complexity
of flowers, and the flowers into the complexity of seeds, over long periods
of time as a result of random mutations, recombination, and natural
selection. We are not so deluded because we know that natural systems
resemble each other in fundamental ways, and in our experience life is the
driving force behind the birth, formation, and growth, of any natural system
whose development we can follow from birth.



Even if we are faced with a giant Sequoia, we know that a single seed akin
to its tiny winged seeds generated that giant for the purpose of
self-reproduction. A child who has never seen a seed unfold into a tree may
be fooled into believing that the tree's structure emerged from the dirt as
a result of an explosion, and gravity acting on that explosion. That child
may even believe in the evolution of leaves from branches, and in the
evolution of seeds from leaves. But those of us who can follow a tree's
development from seed to seeds know beyond any reasonable doubt that lesser
complexity generating greater complexity, and evolution from simplicity to
complexity, are illusions. We know that the reality behind those illusions
is the tree system's initial seed. The initial seed's field of life energy
drives and controls that structure's development and life. It constitutes
that structure's constant or parameters. For the various components of that
structure the initial seed is also the common ancestor. The tree's
quintessence or life energy has its source in the initial seed, and is
reconstituted in the seeds generated. We may say that the seed is the Alpha
and the Omega, the input and the output, or the beginning and the end, of
the tree system.



Because seeds have both particle and field properties, when the initial seed
acts on non-life to generate a structure for the purpose of
self-reproduction, it passes from a potential or particle state into a state
of expression or field of life energy. The field of life energy remains
hidden or "dark" in the background, but we may infer its existence in its
manifestation as a complex structure or system. The initial seed's existence
is also inferable from the existence of its reproductions. To illustrate,
the initial seed of a giant Sequoia is manifest in the tree's structure, and
also in the seeds which that structure yields. Thus the existence of a giant
Sequoia implies the existence of an initial Sequoia seed, and the existence
of the millions of tiny winged Sequoia seeds also implies the existence of
an initial Sequoia seed.



The point I intend to make is that if we find that a natural system came
into being, and displays structure formation and expansion, then from nature
's hard, solid facts we may infer that the system has life, because those
signs are the manifestations of life. If it could be demonstrated that no
initial life played an intimate role in the birth of this life-giving cosmic
structure, and in its formation and expansion, then life's generation by
non-life would constitute the solitary exception to the principle of
biogenesis. However, as Peter T. Mora noted, "How life originated, I am
afraid that, since Pasteur, this question is not within the scientific
domain" [see "Urge and Molecular Biology," by Peter T. Mora; Nature, July
20, 1963].





The Principle of Biogenesis



In the Oxford Dictionary of Biology [Oxford University Press, 2000] we find:
"biogenesis The principle that a living organism can only arise from other
living organisms similar to itself (i.e. that like gives rise to like) and
can never originate from nonliving material." In the Science and Technology
Encyclopedia [University of Chicago Press, 1999] on the same subject we
read: "Biological principle maintaining that all living organisms derive
from parent(s) generally similar to themselves. This long-held principle was
originally established in opposition to the idea of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION
of life. On the whole, it still holds good, despite variations in
individuals caused by mutations, hybridization, and other genetic effects."



Regarding this subject we should be aware of the fact that probably no
biological generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested
evidences than the principle of biogenesis. And because the scientific
evidence is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that life can never originate
from non-life, only from life akin to itself, it is an entirely reasonable
scientific conclusion that there was never a time when life did not exist,
and human life could come only from human life akin to itself.



Although the question of what separates the living from the non-living still
gives biologists restless nights, and although the principle of biogenesis
remains unfalsified, cosmologists do not seem to be concerned. They sidestep
those issues by postulating a non-living source for our life-giving
Universe.



What makes them do so? Incompetence and self-delusion seem to be the most
plausible reasons. Non-life's followers admit that abiogenesis cannot occur
now, but argue that it played an essential role in the origin of life when
the conditions favored abiogenesis billions of years ago. As you may have
guessed the evidence for that postulate is a big fat zero. Based on the same
non-evidence we can argue that at this time the conditions are not right for
making the Sun stand still, but at one time the conditions favored the
performance of that miracle. So it is beyond any doubt that the
origin-of-life superstition is unconnected to any empirically verifiable
reality. It is simply delusion, conjured up by minds closed to the supremacy
of life.



Even if we assume for the sake of irrationality that non-life managed to
generate life-i.e. that an inferior cause yielded a superior effect-,
logically only non-life is qualified to demonstrate the production of life
from non-life. No form of life may play a role in that experiment because
the claim is that non-life on its own performed that most miraculous act.
Thus the laughably foolish claim is that the lesser is superior to the more
complex because the more complex is the product of the lesser.



Moreover, if the credit goes to non-life for the creation of life, then
logically only non-life is qualified to "know" what it took to perform that
miracle of all miracles. Human involvement in any origin-of-life experiment
can only prove what we all know, that life can generate life, but the absurd
contention is that actually non-life generated life. So how can any sane
person give credit to non-life for the production of any form of primitive
life in the lab when those experiments are performed by humans? Humans
decide what kind of materials they want to use, what kind of equipment, what
kind of processes, and so on. Where is any choice or decision made by
non-life? Is there need to make it more evident that any origin-of-life
claim is absurd on theoretical and practical grounds, and flies valiantly in
the face of all scientific common sense?



The existence of this origin-of-life superstition in science is embarrassing
indeed, to say the least. There is no way to test it by anything living, yet
it claims to be scientific. It can't be observed by anything living, yet its
proponents rashly promote it as the best scientific explanation for the
existence of life. Do we still have rational scientists who wish to know
where the proof is for life's origin from non-life?



Another clue for the existence of this origin-of-life superstition in the
scientific community is given by George Wald, a former Harvard biochemist
and winner of the Nobel Prize. In his "Innovation and Biology" article we
find: "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is
spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural
creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation,
that life arose from non-living matter, was scientifically disproved 120
years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible
conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not
accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God.
Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically
impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution" [see "Innovation
and Biology," by George Wald; Scientific American, September 1958].



As I already indicated, there is a third possibility: from the principle of
biogenesis, and from the observation of natural systems, we may infer that
human life is the Creator of the Universe. Human life needs no cause because
it constitutes the Initial Cosmic Genome, Cosmological Constant or Common
Ancestor, of our Universe. Human life exists, and if human life generated
the Universe for the purpose of self-reproduction, then human life is
immortal because the Universe, being the effect, has no power to act upon
the cause of its own origin, similarly as a tree has no power to act upon
the seed of its own origin. Moreover human life appears to be immortal in
the sense that no experiment has proven otherwise.



Any person who can invent a plausible, empirically supported theory of
mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life may collect the $1,350,000
Origin-of-Life Prize, and most definitely a Nobel Prize. However these
rewards are still up for grabs because no one was able to invent such a
theory of mechanism, and obviously never will, because non-life has nothing
to do with the generation of life. So far as our clear and certain knowledge
goes, life comes only from life, and the formation of structures is the
basic quality of life, not that of non-life. This implies that anything with
a structure is the product of life, and not that of non-life.





The Principle of Causality



Modern cosmology's assumption that non-life caused the birth, formation, and
expansion, of our Universe, also flies straight in the face of the principle
of causality.



The principle of causality stipulates that cause and effect are
proportionate, because the effect cannot be greater than the cause which is
required to produce that effect. In other words a cause cannot produce
anything greater than itself. Otherwise the extra part of the effect would
be without a cause, and that is contrary to reason. It may be entertaining
to watch how a magician conjures out of thin air all kinds of things-or a
cosmologist, as a matter of fact-, but in reality no one has yet been able
to get something from nothing.



A salt crystal, for example, can break down to sodium (Na) and chlorine
(Cl), and even those ingredients can break down to smaller parts, but if
anyone argues that a salt crystal can evolve into something more complex on
its own, then we are justified in smelling a causality violation. So in
light of this solid scientific foundation it becomes clear that we are
violating the principle of causality if we argue that non-life generated
life, or that primitive life evolved into the complexity and diversity of
life on its own strength.



Because it is self-evident that the superior can contain the inferior, but
the reverse is impossible, any model that fails to derive human life from a
source which is equal or superior to human life is unacceptable. Those who
credit the creation of human life to the Universe, rather than the creation
of the Universe to human life, are like that proverbial maker of an idol who
supposed that the idol which he had made actually made him.



Let us now consider another finding that made modern cosmology's chronic
input deficiency even more manifest.





Biological Fine-Tuning



Contemporary cosmology just can't get over the discovery that our Universe
appears to be biocentric or bio-friendly, i.e. that the cosmological
parameters are ingeniously fine-tuned for the production of life. In our
experience the parameters or determining characteristics of plant and animal
systems are delicately fine-tuned for the production of reproductive cells
because those systems are reproductive cells unfolded. We find, in other
words, that the parameters of a hen are fine-tuned for the production of
eggs because an egg generated that system for the purpose of
self-reproduction. Also we find that the parameters of an apple tree are
fine-tuned for the production of apples because an apple seed generated that
system for the purpose of self-reproduction. So when we find that the
parameters of our Universe are fine-tuned for the production of life, then
the most plausible explanation seems to be that it is so because an Initial
Cosmic Genome generated the cosmic system for the purpose of
self-reproduction.



Needless to say, none of the celebrities of science came even near to this
conclusion. Instead they appeal to the idea of a multiverse or many-worlds
interpretation, and fancies of that nature, in an effort to explain away the
bio-centrality of our Universe. However the facts remain, and the weird
evidenceless speculations will have to go, because they hamper the progress
of science in many ways.





Energetic Expansion



What really causes modern cosmology great agony is the recent discovery that
the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, rather than decelerating.
Practically all involved seem to be clueless what makes the cosmic structure
's expansion more energetic. In our experience growth or expansion,
increases in level of complexity, and the potential to become more
energetic, are the basic qualities of living systems. So the findings that
the cosmic structure's level of complexity increases and becomes more
energetic imply that our Universe is an open system. But open to what? The
only reasonable answer is, I'm absolutely confident, that our Universe is
open to a Cosmic Genome's field of life energy.



Because the Cosmos is the Cosmic Genome's effect, and lives within the
Cosmic Genome's field of life energy (you may call it "cosmological
constant," "quantum vacuum," "dark energy," or "quintessence"), the Cosmos
has no power to act upon the very cause of its own origin, similarly as a
tree has no power to act upon the seed of its own origin. This implies the
Cosmic Genome's immortality, and that the Cosmic Genome is the Common
Ancestor of all things generated in the Universe.





The Living Cosmology



The available data indicate that instead of non-life, the most complex form
of life that exists is the Cosmic Seed or Common Ancestor of our Universe.
Because we know human life to be the most complex form of life, the
tentative Cosmic Seed of the Universe is human life, pending the discovery
of an even more complex form of life. Thus the Unified Theory that an
initial Cosmic Genome, akin to human genome, generated the Universe for the
purpose of self-reproduction appears to provide the best explanation for the
data we have.



It may be argued that human life is not the highest form of life in the
Universe, but it does not tally with the obvious facts we have. There is
absolutely no demonstrable evidence in favor of the belief that a life form,
as superior to us as we are to the animals, exists. But if anyone insists
that human life is not the highest form of life in existence, where is the
evidence that a life form superior to human life exists, or can come into
existence? Those who argue in favor of such a superhuman life have the
burden to deliver the demonstrable evidence. So the proposal that human life
constitutes the cosmic system's provisional output remains valid. Only the
discovery of a superhuman output can falsify that theory, or the
demonstration that a cause can generate an effect greater than is found in
the cause.