This note is aimed to be a simple statement of the thesis that I wish to present in these web pages. This presentation is stripped almost bare of description and example. It is unsupported by proofs. It is also not presented in the context of other people’s work. This no doubt exists and I am aware of some strongly linked elements that I will cover in later notes but to my knowledge no one expresses the thoughts in quite the same way that I do. However I doubt if my concepts are truly original and will be happy to receive feedback from others who think along similar lines who have good references to other work on the topic. I will also be happy to defend and modify my ideas in the light of criticism from those who think that I am wrong in my approach.

Please therefore excuse me for this rather bald and direct statement moment. I feel quite strongly that I must get this down on paper. I propose to fill in the details and analyse the nuances later.

What I am proposing transcends (or overlays) the laws of physics and mathematics but of course is quite happy to accept them as they are validated. It requires no metaphysics or "supernatural" processes because everything that happens is by definition natural. As well as applying in our particular "universe" I believe that the principles of Evolutionary Philosophy will apply in ANY universe. I am sorry to sound "big headed" but I feel that the point must be made emphatically.

Let us assume a dynamic (i.e. changing as a result of energy flow) universe with some initial starting condition and a set of consistent and reasonably continuous physical laws that exists within (multidimensional) space-time continuum over a very wide range of scales.

Let us assume an "observer" (that is also part of this universe) situated somewhere away from the extreme ends of the many orders of magnitude space-time scales that are available. i.e. somewhat similar to us (of course!)

The most "observable" features of any universe will be those that tend to persist through the time scale of the observation or change at rates reasonably well matched to the duration and resolution of the observation. I appreciate that this statement has elements of tautology but haven’t thought of a better way of expressing it yet.

Events that are observed will be those that are matched to this observation time. Events that happen on a much shorter time scale will be less "observable" unless something happens to extend the time over which they may be observed. Note: I think that at this stage the word time could equally well be replaced with the more general expression space-time.

It follows that interaction processes that extend this space time observability of what would otherwise be brief interactions to bring them within the range of the observer will be favoured over those that do not. There may very many possible types of brief interaction although only a few will possess this potential extension in spacetime.

There is also the opportunity for very many possible interactions in the time leading up to the operation of the observer. It is therefore to be expected that the observable interactions are likely to demonstrate a high degree of what might be called "natural selection"

In other words the observable structure of the universe will appear well fitted to the structure of the observer! This is another way of looking at the well known Anthropic Principle making it not a cause for mystery but an obvious feature of any universe with its matched observer. It would be far more surprising if this was NOT the case! And mankind had structures and components that were significantly different from the universe around. for example if we were metallic and silicon robots with many rotary joints that manufactured ouselves in factories but were otherwise very similar in our thinking processes and supported by an ecology identical to that currently on the earth the hand of an external "creator" would be pretty obvious!

Let us now consider the likely nature of some of these, time-extending structures.

A structure in the universe that lasts and repeats itself in a cyclic manner is much more likely to be an observable feature of an evolving universe. This is because cyclic or oscillatory processes extend the period of interaction between the fundamental laws and structures. They also extend the period within which the universe may interact with them and give the opportunity for "evolution". Cyclic processes are therefore most likely to dominate in the observable features in the universe just because they extend the time period over which they may be observed. From this follows the existence of atoms and their main constituents and most of the features of our observable universe extending in scale up to planets, stars and galaxies in orbits defined by gravity.

There are however other structures that must not be ignored. These are "open ended" structures that are associated with the flow of energy. For example the ripples in sand when it is blown by the wind. It is quite likely that structures at the most basic quantum levels may be better described in terms like these

Other features within the universe will interact with and affect these long-lived oscillatory processes. Some of these will be tend to be disruptive and some stabilising and reinforcing. If the disruptive processes dominate the structure will not persist long but if the stabilising processes dominate the process will evolve to an optimum position as defined by its external influences. If these external influences change, the equilibrium will shift.

This fundamental "law" applies to EVERYTHING IN OUR UNIVERSE and governs the development of complexity from the physical nature of our world, and the workings of life. However I hold that it extends further than this. The same processes apply to the development of our language communication and understanding through to the structures within our governments, our choice of clothes to wear and jokes to tell. In fact it is so important that I would go as far as to say it is likely to be the nearest thing to a scientific definition of "GOD" as we are likely to get in this evolutionary universe! It describes the fact that within any dynamical physical system with sufficient degrees of freedom complexities will develop and evolve. The rules for this development and evolution are also relatively simple although the outcomes are complex and multivalued.

If the starting values were slightly different the universe would have a radically different structure. But rest assured alternative complexities appropriate to the structure would develop. We are no more likely to be able to predict the details of these complexities than we could predict our own detailed structure from the physical laws that have conspired to create us!

At first sight I expect my opening words on Evolutionary Philosophy to be greeted as a statement of the obvious. "What’s all the fuss about" I hear you say "we’ve been well aware of this for centuries and this is built right into the depths of most of the world’s religions."

My reply is that mankind is now only just starting to understand the science of "complexity" and within a few years we will be able to model and predict the relatively simple rules that govern the behaviour of complex systems accurately enough to make useful decisions (within the limits of their predictability of course). But even now I believe that the understanding of a few simple outcomes from this process can be vitally important. It can help our current complex society to survive long enough to achieve the collective wisdom to ensure a very long survival for the intelligence and self awareness that has evolved naturally upon this planet.

The most important and general outcome of this process is a modification of our understanding of the evolutionary process itself. This is often visualised as a totally competitive process in which the survival of the fittest is the only driving force. Behind this driving force there also lies an important element of co-operation, because if the predator eats all the prey it will itself starve to death! Like weather systems this underlying steering force produces and maintains the robustness and flexibility of properly evolved systems.

This single concept alone is not quite enough to create the basis of a total philosophy. Some additional items are needed to link it more firmly into human thinking these items form the basis of an evolutionary theory of knowledge and communication (language).

In this initial presentation there is not space to go into detail but put simply they are based on the concepts of modelling as a means of understanding the world and symbols as an essential part of communications.

The creation of mathematical models of complex physical situations as an aid to understanding how they will interact and predicting what will happen is commonplace in this technological world but it has been around for a long time in the most basic mental processes in plants and animals. The brain appears to be a most remarkable tool for the creations of models of the world around us. I can easily illustrate this by discussing our sensory experiences. Look at any object in front of you and then reach out and touch it. The object appeared to you as solid and existing in space and when you touched it its existence was confirmed and it behaviour (for example moving when pushed) was reflected in what you saw. However this "reality" must have existed entirely within your mind as a model of your surroundings created for "you" by your brain because apart from the act of touching it all that happened was light falling on the object was reflected by it and entered your eyes.

When we wish to communicate with others we use symbols usually in the form of words. These symbols have no intrinsic value in themselves but have been pre agreed by usage and have values based purely on our own experience. Very few of these symbols can be proved or handled precisely like numbers and scientific measurements. Most of them like "house" and "fly" are a product of our experience and the context within which they are used with sufficient commonality to others to provide a basis for communication but are full of pitfalls if absolute precision is essential. Fortunately very few things in an Evolutionary Philosopher's world are (or need to be) precisely defined.

The most important thing to remember that mankind is in absolutely no way special but a totally minor (and expendable) part in all of this. That includes our place in the global ecosystem. If we are to follow these principles it is our right and duty to ensure that we maximise our joint (but not necessarily our personal) longevity

These simple starting points can lead to a philosophical bridge between science and religion that maximises the positive and creative aspects of both of these forces and minimises the divisive and destructive elements that also exist in both of them. Because of its nature it cannot give precise advice on individual action. In fact it tells us anyone who believes that there is only one course of action is by definition wrong!

Evolutionary diversity requires us to have several courses of action operational simultaneously so that should the current course be prevented by an unexpected catastrophe. Alternative survival routes exist that circumvent the catastrophe.

Back to

* Home * Outsiders * Insiders * References * Links * View Discussion * Add to Discussion *