Biocosmology - Chris C King

Page 41

13.1: Complementarity and the Sexuality of Quantum Entanglement

This cosmology is intrinsically sexual. Subject-object complementarity is different from either panpsychism or Cartesian duality. The subjective aspect is described as complimentary to the physical loophole of quantum uncertainty and entanglement, just as the wave and particle aspects of the quantum universe are complementary. Subjective and objective are interdependent upon one another with neither fully described in terms of the other. Furthermore, the transactional interpretation is intrinsically sexual in the sense that all exchanges are mediated through entangled relationship between an emitter and an absorber in which reduction of the wave function is a match-making sequence of marriages. This sexual paradigm is not simply an analogy, but is a deep expression of the mutual complementarity and intrinsic relationship manifest in the existential realm, physically and subjectively and between.

Furthermore, the theory suggests the evolution of gendered recombinational sexuality, as it is found in metaphyta, is not simply an analogy with quantum complementarity, but is an emergent expression of the same complementarity principle. The single ovum, by necessity, is driven to seek fertilization through a solotonic wave of excitation which extends across the membrane. The multiple sperm, by contrast, are particulate packets of molecular DNA, without a cellular cytoplasmic contribution. Thus biological sexuality is utilizing quantum complementarity in the symmetry-breaking of gender.

The pivotal role of complementarity is reflected in both the Tantric and Taoist cosmologies. In Tantra, the subject-object relation is an intimate sexual union, which, in its retreat from complete intimacy, spawns all the complexity of the existential realm. In the Taoist view the same two dyadic principles are the creative and receptive forces which in their sequential transformation in the I Ching give rise to all the dynamic states of existence. In Taoist thought, the cosmological principle is manifest in three phenomena, chance, life and consciousness, the very same phenomena appearing here in quantum physics, evolution and brain dynamics. The transactional principle clearly establishes the marital dance of emitter and absorber as the foundation of historicity - the collapse of the infinite shadow worlds of multiverses into the one line of history we experience in life, evolution, consciousness and social and natural history.

Randomness remains a scientific mystery, explained ultimately by quantum entanglement. The source of the scientific concept of randomness lies in theories, such as probability theory, statistical mechanics, and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which draw generalities from an incomplete knowledge of the system. However the source of supposedly random events in the real world lies either in highly unstable systems, which themselves may draw their uncertainty from the quantum level, or directly from the phenomena of reduction of the wave function under the probability interpretation. The transactional approach seeks to explain the sub-stratum of entanglement in a deeper interaction. This could provide an ultimate explanation for the origin of randomness in the underlying sexual weave of transactions.

13.2: Subjective Experience, Intentionality and Quantum Mind Theories

This paper proposes that the existential realm is a complementarity between subjective consciousness and the objective physical universe, of a founding cosmological nature. It advances a basis for natural selection of subjective awareness through a quantum entangled form of anticipation quite independent from computation as such.

In this view, subjective awareness is not identifiable with quantum entanglement but is complementary to it. Through chaotic instability and its fractal interaction with quantum uncertainty a loophole is created in the physical description which allows subjective consciousness to have selective advantage. This advantage is in turn given expression in the physical world through free-will, or intentionality. Subjective consciousness transforms from incoming sensory and other forms of perception to the outgoing expression of creative consequences in intentional action. Here intentionality is not any kind of specific drive possessed or directed by the organism, but the very capacity for subjective experience to, in turn, affect the physical universe and the future potentialities it may perceive by an act of free-will. We depend on a founding sense of personal autonomy to be able to act as sane individuals, without which we might all become catatonic or robotic automata. Intentionality or will is a mystery, both from the objective physical description, and from subjective existence. Just as uncertainty and unpredictability open the loop hole making free-will possible in the quantum universe, so the subjective aspect of will remains potentially as free of internal conditioning by drive or ego as it is potentially free of becoming completely conditioned by the circumstances of the physical world. In so far as we as sentient conscious individuals treat love and will as mysteries in their own right, so they become the subjective complement of an integrated expression of quantum non-locality and an entanglement which permeates the entire universe. In applying our free will, we each contribute collectively to the collapse of the infinite possibilities of the multiverses before us into a beneficent or sterile outcome. Just as the choice is ours at all points to enhance or diminish the diversity and abundance of life, so our world history becomes one of abundance or poverty.

We also have to consider how sensory information which may be pre-conscious achieves a level of consensual arousal or ‘phase coherence’ sufficient to draw attention to itself and become a fully fledged conscious experience. As Libet has noted, this may involve backward time referral of a conscious experience to its first pre-conscious manifestation.

The transactional perspective stands unique among quantum theories in providing an explanation for anticipatory consciousness which can effect the future of the physical universe through will. The Copenhagen interpretation, being essentially a theory of our knowledge, rather than the universe itself, can say nothing on this question of interactivity between subjective and objective aspects. Many worlds interpretations, having no process of collapse provide no mechanism whatever for consciousness to interact to influence the physical future. The Bohm pilot wave theory being a semi-quantum theory with a classical underpinning in the quantum potential likewise remains a purely objective description, which also has specific problems dealing with initial conditions which can generate new quantum degrees of freedom, such as a high energy x-ray photon which can split into a quark-antiquark pair.

Penrose and Hameroff’s (2003) orchestrated objective reduction model likewise provides an objective reduction process driven in the limit by gravitational decoherence (the gravitational self-energy between the differing mass distributions of the outcomes), which permits subjective consciousness (or the transition from the pre-conscious state) only to reflect the objective reduction , and thus cannot explain how intentional conscious can effect the physical universe. Hameroff and Penrose concen-

Page 42

trate on the microtubule as a possible basis for quantum computation using two states of the tubulin monomer, in the form of a quantum cellular automation, however this process to avoid decoherence requires the isolation of microtubules, possibly through de-linking of MAP protein connections with the excitable membrane. This effectively reduces any form of quantum consciousness to collections of isolated cell interiors, preventing a direct feedback between the electrodynamical global brain resonances we identify with active conscious states (e.g. in the 40 Hz region) and quantum non-locality.

Although microtubules possess many interesting properties, including possible solitonic interactions, and topological quantum transformations less subject to decoherence, their primary functions are transport of essential chemicals and components such as vesicle and maintaining structural integrity of longer-term processes such as synaptic adaption and long term potentiation. What is really needed is a quantum mind theory capable of linking the fast electrodynamical resonances we associate with active conscious states to an anticipatory form of quantum non-locality. The supercausal version of transactional quantum theory, which allows for mutual collapse of an entangled transaction to specific real connections between emitters and their future absorbers, is unique in providing such a possibility.

13.3: Consciousness and Neurocosmology

The diversity of wave-particles resulting from symmetry-breaking of the fundamental forces finds its final interactional complexity, in which all forces have a common asymmetric mode of expression, in complex molecular systems. It is thus natural that fundamental principles of their quantum interaction may be ultimately realized in the most delicate, complex and globally inerconnected molecular systems known - those involved in brain dynamics. In this sense the brain is the culmination of a fractal interaction induced by’ alpha limit’ of cosmic symmetry-breaking - the cosmic sigma limit just as the heat death is an omega limit (fig 1).

The deepest question which can be posed about cosmology is this: What is the relationship between the existential observer and the universe at large? What is the relation between conscious subjectivity and the objective physical world? This is a question which has plagued philosophers and scientists from the early Greeks through Bishop Berkeley and Descartes to modern researchers from Francis Crick, (Crick and Koch 1992) who believes consciousness to be a product specific brain oscillations and their neural mechanisms to David Chalmers (1995) who sees the ‘hard problem in consciousness research’ as a fundamental philosophical chasm which can only be crossed through a greater description of reality.

Despite the advances of modern scanning techniques such as PET (positron emission tomography) and fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) and electroand magneto-encephalographic studies, a chasm still remains between the brain states under a researchers probe and the subjective experiences of reality we depend on for our awareness of the physical world. This comes on top of a fundamental complementarity upon which we depend for our existence. Although we live as biological organisms, raise families, navigate our lives and perform our science on the assumption of the existence of the physical world, we access physical reality only through our subjective sensory experiences. Without the direct veridicial access we have to subjective experience, there would be no conscious ‘observers’. It remains unclear under these circumstances that one could establish that the physical universe would exist in any objective ‘sense’.

Ironically a purely objective physical world description considers only brain states, leaving subjective conscousness to the perilously ephemeral status of an epi-phenomenon, or not existent at all. However the physical world is really a consensual stability property of our conscious experiences, despite the fact that we are physical organisms whose consciousness appears to depend on our remaining alive. We can both consciously agree that the table is a table or that we will bleed if cut, so the subjective aspect is capable of representing the objective. The objective is capable in turn of ‘incorporating’ the subjective in terms of uncertainty in the physical. A fully cosmological theory would thus have to encompass both realms.

Fig 41:(a) Correspondence between brain states and subjectively perceived differences, is illustrated by the differing evoked potentials (averages of many recordings triggered by the same stimulus) when an inverted face is easily recognized as below, from the ambiguous image above. However the differing electrical potentials are qualitatively quite distinct from the differing subjective experiences in the two cases. Conscious experience cannot thus be reduced to brain states. Right:Visual illusions stimulate neurons that code explicitly for illusory contours (c), and mutually-interfering 3-D perspectives (b).

This access to the subjective is profoundly augmented by a variety of subjective states, some of which have no direct correlate in the physical world, yet can be commandingly real to the observer. Firstly consciousness is constructive, and

fills in details to generate a subjective description of reality which can often lead to peculiar results as illustrated by visual illusions (fig 41). More significantly we have states of meditative trance, hallucination and particularly the intense phases of dreaming. Although various tests can be made by the astute subject to distinguish dreaming from waking reality, the very fact of Dreaming as an alternative veridicial reality raises a deep question about the nature of the everyday world we perceive. Is it nothing but an internal dream state anchored by additional stability constraints provided by sensory input? If we are actually witnessing exclusively and only our internal model of reality, what then is the manifest nature of the physical world?

The brain may be one of the few places where the supercausal aspect of wave-packet reduction can be clearly manifest, as a result of its unique capacity to utilize entanglement in its dynamics. Although other unstable systems from the weather to axionic dark-matter condensates (Ryquist) may also display such features of non-locality, it is difficult to conceive of a physical system which could in any way match the brain as a potential detector of correlations and interrelationships within the domain of quantum mechanics. Cosmology is not simply a matter of vast energies, but also quantum rules. In these rules of engagement more fundamental even than symmetry-breaking, the stage appears to be set for the emergence of sentient organism as the culminating manfestation in complexity of quantum interaction. In this sense the conscious brain may be the ultimate inheritor and interactive culmination of the quantum process at the foundation of the universe itself.

Page 43

REFERENCES

1.Aspect A., Dalibard J., Roger G., (1982), Experimental tests of Bell’s theorem using time-varying analysers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804.

2.Basar, E. (1990). Chaotic dynamics and resonance phenomena in brain function : Progress, perspectives and thoughts. In E. Basar (Ed.) Chaos in brain function. (pp. 1-30). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

3.Basar, E., Basar-Eroglu, J., Röschke, J., and Schütt, A. (1989). The EEG is a quasi-deterministic signal anticipating sen- sory-cognitive tasks. In Basar E., Bullock T.H. (Eds.), Brain dynamics.(pp 43-71). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

4.Blakemore C. (1991) Sir Douglas Robb Lectures, Auckland N.Z.

5.Bohm D. (1952), A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables, I & II, Phys. Rev. 85 166-93.

6.Bohm D. (1980), Wholeness and the implicate order London, Boston and Henley, U.K. Routeledge & Kegan Paul.

7.Brown J. (1994) A quantum revolution for computing New. Scientist Sept 24

8.Calude C., Pavlov B. Lightspeed computing in New Scientist 6 Apr 2002

9.Chalmers D. (1995) The Puzzle of Conscious Experience Sci. Am. Dec. 62-69

10.Chay T.R., Rinzel J. (1985), Bursting, beating and chaos in an excitable membrane model, Biophys. J. 47, 357-366.

11.Clauser, J.F., and Shimony, A. (1978). Bell’s theorem : Experimental tests and implications. Reports in the Progress of Physics, 41, 1881 - 1927.

12.Cramer J.G., (1986), The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 647 - 687.

13.Crick F, Koch C. (1992) The Problem of Consciousness Sci. Am. Sep. 110-117.

14.Dennett D. C. (1991) Consciousness Explained Little Brown & Co., Boston.

15.Deutsch D., (1985), Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A400, 97-117.

16.Dunne J. W. (c 1935) An Experiment With Time Faber, 1st ed.

17.Eddington, A.S . (1935). New pathways in science. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

18.Freeman, W. (1991). The physiology of perception. Sci. Am. 264, Feb 35-41.

19.Goldman-Rakic P. (1992) Working Memory and the Mind Sci. Am. Sep 73-79.

20.Gutzwiller, M.C. (1992). Quantum chaos. Sci. Am. 266, 78 - 84.

21.Hameroff, Stuart; Penrose, Roger (2003) Conscious Events as Orchestrated Space-Time Selections NeuroQuantology; 1: 10-35

22.Hawking, Stephen 2001 The Universe in a Nutshell Bantam Press. N.Y.

23.Hooper J. & Teresi D., (1986), The Three-Pound Universe, MacMillan New York .

24.Kandel E., Schwartz J, Jessel T 2000 Principles of Neural Science $th ed. McGraw Hill NY

25.King C.C. (1989), Dual-time supercausality, Phys. Essays 2, 128 - 151.

26.King C.C. (1991), Fractal and Chaotic Dynamics in the Brain Prog. Neurobiol. 36 279-308.

27.King C.C. (1996), Fractal Neurodynamics and Quantum Chaos in Fractals of Brain Fractals of Mind Adv. in Consciousness Research 7 (ed.) MacCormac E., Stamenov M. 179 - 233.

28.King C.C. (1997), Quantum mechanics, Chaos and the Conscious Brain J. Mind and Behavior 18, 155-170.

29.King C.C. (2001) Codex of the Tree of Life WED Monographs 1 1-775 http://www.dhushara.com

30.King C.C. (2003), Chaos, Quantum-transactions and Consciousness: A Biophysical Model of the Intentional Mind NeuroQuantology 1 129-148.

31.King C.C. (2002) Biocosmology Part 1 Prebiotoic Epoch: Symmetry-Breaking and Molecular Evolution. WED Reviewed Monographs http://www.dhushara.com 2/1 1-20

32.King C.C. (2002) Biocosmology Part 2 Evolutionary Epoch: Chaos, Complexity and Complementarity. WED Reviewed Monographs http://www.dhushara.com 2/2 21-30.

33.LaBerge S., (1990), Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming , Ballantine Books, Random House, New York.

34.Libet B. (1989) The timing of a subjective experience Behavioral Brain Sciences 12 183-5.

35.Liebovitch L.S., Fischbarg J., Konairek J.P., Todorova I., Wang Mei, (1987a), Fractal model of ion-channel kinetics, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 896, 173-180.

36.Liebovitch L.S., Sullivan J.M., (1987b), Fractal analysis of a voltage-dependent potassium channel from cultured mouse hippocampal neurons, Biophys. J. 52, 979-988.

37.Liebovitch L.S., T. Toth (1991) A model of ion channel kinetics using deterministic chaotic rather than stochastic processes J. Theor. Biol. 148, 243-267.

38.Lockwood M., (1989), Mind, Brain & the Quantum, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

39.MacLean, P. (1991). Neofrontocerebellar evolution in regard to computation and prediction: Some fractal aspects of microgenesis. In R. Hanlon (Ed.), Cognitive microgenesis : A new psychological perspective (pp.3-33). New York: Springer-Verlag.

40.Penrose R., (1989), The Emperor's New Mind , Oxford University Press.

41.Penrose, R. (1994). Shadows of the mind. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

42.PribramKarl H. Ed. (1993) Rethinking neural networks : quantum fields and biological data Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.

43.Ruthen, R. (1993) Adapting to Complexity Scientific American, 268, 110-117.

44.Ryquist R. (2003) A Dark Matter Model of Consciousness Yanniru Foundation. Quantum Mind 2003 Poster Session.

45.Samuel E. (2001) Seeing the seeds of cancer New Scientist 24 Mar 42-45.

46.Schierwagen A.K., (1986) Dendritic branching patterns, in Chaos in Biological Systems ed. Degn H., Holden A.,V., Olsen L.F. Plenum Press, New York, 191-193.

47.Schuster, H.J. (1986). Deterministic chaos Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

48.Skarda C.J., Freeman W.J., (1987), How brains make chaos in order to make sense of the world, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10, 161-195.

49.Stewart I., (1989), Does God Play Dice? Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

50.Stickgold R., (1998) Sleep: off line memory reprocessing Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2, 484

51.Teich M. (1992) Fractal neuron firing patterns 589-625 in McKenna T., Davis J.,Zornetzer S. in Single Neuron Computa-

Page 44

tion, Academic Pr. San Diego.

52.Warren W. (1998) MR Imaging contrast enhancement based on intermolecular zero quantum coherences Science 281

247.

53.Wilhelm R. (1951) The I Ching, Routledge & Kegan Paul, N.Y.

54.Winson J. (1990) The meaning of dreams Scientific American Nov, 42-48.

55.Zeki S. (1992) The visual image in mind and brain Sci. Am. Sep 43-50.

56.Zurek W., (1991) Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to Classical Physics Today Oct.

Prof. Menas Kafatos

University Professor of Interdisciplinary Science and Director Center for Earth Observing and Space Research (CEOSR) ; and Dean, School of Computational Sciences (SCS) ;

and Department of Physics

Room 301B, Science and Technology I MSN 5C3

George Mason University

Fairfax, VA 22030-4444 Telephone: (703) 993-1997 Fax: (703) 993-3628 e-mail: mkafatos@gmu.edu

Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 12:01:13 -0400

From: Menas Kafatos <mkafatos@compton.gmu.edu>

To: Chris King <king@math.auckland.ac.nz>

Subject: Re: Biocosmology monograph

Dear Chris:

Thanks for the monograph (in the future you can send me large files to my own server, mkafatos@compton.gmu.edu).

Although actually proving that structures in the universe fit a fractal pattern (hence there is a connection to some sort of underlying non-linear dynamics) may be very difficult, nevertheless something like this must be happening due to the fractal-like structures we see in nature (not just in biological systems). I like what you are saying: The fractal idea seems to fit what we see everywhere, and I tried in my talk to present the concept of underlying universal principles and structures: scale-invariance and associated universal diagrams (see my Tucson presentation re. specifically the cosmological relationships and the universal diagrams).

Menas

From: "Russell Ceballos" <ucmenicu@msn.com>

To: king@math.auckland.ac.nz

Subject: Re: Brain-mind cosmology monograph

Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 14:00:46 -0500

To whom it may concern,

I work in the School of Computational Sciences at George Mason University under the supervision of Drs. Menas Kafatos (Dean of SCS), Karl Pribram, and Sisir Roy, and have been asked by Dr. Chris King to say a few words concerning his work on fractal Biocosmology.

I feel that it is a tremendous step in the right direction, attempting to unify so many disparate and yet fundamental principles in the universe, such as symmetry-breaking, nonlinear dynamics (fractals), biology, and time symmetric quantum physics. Although it may be a first step, it is remarkable that someone has finally made a step at all. There is very little work being done in this direction, and it is of my opinion that Chris’s work is some of the best work being done in the world today; attempting to unite the most challenging mathematical and conceptual fields in science is an extremely daunting task.

I hope that Chris receives all of the support he requires to proceed with his work internationally; I feel his work is of some of the highest merit, and the world would only benefit if exposed. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Best wishes,

Russell R. Ceballos

School of Computational Sciences, George Mason University

Review of the monograph "BIOCOSMOLOGY" by C.C. King

The monograph is devoted to the origin of the life and its interactive role in the cosmology evolution from the viewpoint of modern quantum physics. In the first part joint consideration of origin of the Universe and life is presented. The author grounds the anthropic principle in detail. As a result a cosmic status of RNA is shown.In the second part the most difficult and interesting problems of biological evolution are considered. The main idea is biological implementation of the Cramer interpretation of quantum nonlocality by Weeler-Feynman electrodynamics. Recently this theory has attracted new attention due to the first experimental evidence of advanced non-local correlation of the distant dissipative processes. It is very important that experiment dealt with nonliving systems, but their results proved to be concerned to the problem of consciousness nature. Namely, it turned out that advanced correlation gives the possibility of observation the future noncontrolled by an observer. That is observer’s consciousness somehow suppresses the advanced transaction, providing a way for free will. It seems that the degree of the suppression depends on degree of observer’s source-process control. Therefore nature and role anticipation suggested by C. C. King were independently and unexpectedly confirmed by modern experimental physics. It inspires the development of his ideas.

The monograph is useful for scientists working in the field of biology, biophysics and biochemistry. Clear stile gives it also accessible to undergraduates.

S. M. Korotaev, Dr Sci., Head of Lab Geoelectromagnetic Research Institute Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor of Physics Bauman Moscow State University.

Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:14:10 -0500 (CDT)

Reply-To: Talk 2000 Recipients <2000ad-l@usc.edu>

Sender: owner-2000ad-l@usc.edu

From: aesir <aesir@prodigy.net>

To: Talk 2000 Recipients <2000ad-l@usc.edu>

Keywords: millennium

Congratulations to Chris on his brilliant paper. I would like to make a few remarks. †

Some points in the paper are just cool. Maybe the idea that the periodicities of the periodic table are a fractal pattern is not new, but

only now do†I appreciate why†that is a quantum phenomenon. Similarly, I know that there has been some discussion about the role of clays in the RNA world, but†Chris has made clear, at least to me, that this is yet more evidence that†the basic chemistry of life†cannot be simply a collection of frozen accidents. † †

More generally, it seems to me that Chris has rescued†the Barrow & Tipler cosmological model from the embarrassing disconfirmations of recent years. Their model†was based on the†principle†that the universe must evolve in such a way as to produce†an observer. The problem was that their observer (Who bore a†generic resemblance to a certain supreme being†I could mention) had to occur at the Omega†Point of a closed universe. It now seems that we do not live in such a universe. Chris has some up with an explanation for†how†observers capable of collapsing the universal quantum wave could appear right in the middle of cosmic history. Sentient life†creates both the past and the future. †

I have two questions: †

First: It has been argued that consciousness is not necessary to collapse quantum states. I realize that Chris says specifically that consciousness cannot be identified with quantum mechanics, yet†the idea of a†non-local "handshake" does seem to be merely quantum mechanical.†Is there something else? †

Second: It is not clear from Chris's argument why consciousness has to continue. In fact, a look at the chart on page 33 suggests that it won't. That asymptotic graph (of what? genera?) leading up to man is clearly a kind of explosion.†In Chris's†system, the function of the explosion was to†make beings that would create the universe by observing it. Now that we've had a good look, however, why expect either man or the biosphere to†on? †

In any case, very good work†

------

John J. Reilly

E-mail: aesir@prodigy.net

Website: http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/index.htm

Dr. Joseph Naimo

Research Associate

Philosophy Department

Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia

Phone + 61 8 9360 6219

Email: jnaimo@central.murdoch.edu.au

Author: Chris C. King

Department of Mathematics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Article: Biocosmology (2003)

PEER REVIEW

Reading Biocosmology (2003) was for openers at once fascinating as it was challenging for its breadth of intellectual exercise and exploration of ideas in as much as it is an assault upon a broad range of disciplinary boundaries. It is refreshing to find someone with the necessary acumen and intellectual rigor and clarity of mind to tread where so many others have found it necessary to circumambulate. What impresses me the most is King’s extent of study and the integration of ideas from physics, biology and cosmology. It is an ambitious, far-reaching research program with several features. The general sense of the research, as I understand it, is that it offers a fractal theory of physical interaction. Building upon the idea of symmetry-breaking King provides an account where living systems emerge as a necessary outcome of non-linear quantum bifurcation processes. In the best of all possible worlds, LIFE will emerge as indeed a necessary condition not just as a chance outcome of ‘fine tuning’.

The program extends into the arena of philosophical polemics dealing with issues debated over centuries, even millennia. By this, I mean King presents a new approach to the problems of Free-Will and Intentionality based upon a version of the transactional interpretation of quantum physics first developed by John Cramer of the University of Washington. Following Libet, how sensory information, which may in fact be pre-conscious, achieves a level of consensual arousal sufficient to draw attention to itself and become conscious experience may involve backward time referral. This is indeed a controversial area and much work remains to be done. Whether such a thing as backward time referral actually transpires or is indeed just simultaneous activity given the nature of quantum entanglement and the non-local feature of the quantum world is yet to be determined.

I recommend Chris King be given every opportunity to continue his most valuable research and disseminate his ideas among the academic community of the world.

Joseph Naimo

April 16, 2003

Hi Chris,

I've read your paper with much interest and have attached a very

brief review for you. You might be interested to know that Huw Price in Sydney is working on an interpretation that does away with the time-symmetrical mathematical underpinnings of physics. The aim is to produce a version that is completely asymmetrical which matches human psychology. The transactional approach is highly problematical from his analysis and he endeavours to render it redundant. Whether his team achieve this end is another story.

Good luck Chris, very good work so far!

I hope I have been of some service to you in your endeavour for funding.

Cheers

JN

Review of "Biocosmology. Part 1: Prebiotic Epoch", and "Biocosmology. Part 2: Evolutionary Epoch" by C.C. KING (Dpt Math., U. Auckland, NZ)

---------------------------------------------------

These two papers by CC King are well written and easily readable, even if the area of scientific knowledge covered here is wild. The paper is also well documented by many illustrations and the references are accurate and standardized.

Even if highly controversial, the concept of "biocosmology" is intellectually stimulating for the reader. The main weakness nonetheless lies in the largely speculative aspect of the theory. But as scientific research surely needs a theoretical framework, this should not represent an obstacle to publication.

All ideas presented by King in these papers may surely not prove all correct, but the idea of a biocosmology is sufficiently elegant to be published – and further developments encouraged.

Ivan O. GODFROID, MD

CHU de Charleroi (Université Libre de Bruxelles) Department of Psychiatry

55, rue de l’Hôpital

B-6030 Charleroi (Belgium) ivan.godfroid@chu-charleroi.be

Dear Chris,

You will find as an attached file a short review of your paper on

Biocosmology. I enjoyed reading it. Hope this can help you!

Best regards,

Ivan.

<<King.doc>>

Dr Ivan O. GODFROID, MD

CHU de Charleroi - Service de Psychiatrie Hôpital Vincent van Gogh

55, rue de l'Hôpital

B-6030 Marchienne-au-Pont (Belgium). E-mail : ivan.godfroid@chu-charleroi.be Homepage : http://www.chu-charleroi.be/ Tél. : +32.71.92.35.04

Fax : +32.71.92.05.81

Dear Prof. King:

I quickly read your monograph ( I say quickly because it is a massive document and would require extensive time to study in detail) and would like to give you my first impressions.

First this is clearly an extensive and excellent piece of work summarizing a great deal of what science believes to know and attempting to address some of the biggest questions and holes in our conventional theories and notions.

Page. 2 " putting life and with it ourselves back to the center stage of the cosmic arena."

I feel this expresses a sentiment that is long overdue. Here is what I see as the strength of the work.

*To me it represents a compendium of information we believe to know about the Universe presented with an excellent and artistically attractive set of illustrations.

*It attempts to find a coherent story for why the Universe is the way it is. The references and illustrations combine elements from sub atomic physics, cosmology, and molecular chemistry. It is nice to see such a grand attempt.

*Impressive knowledge of chemistry and organic pathways used as a description of what needs to be explained

* Good, but I do not believe sufficient, arguments as to why the earth bound molecular synthesis is inadequate and consequently why the cosmological source of basic life chemistry is an attractive alternative

Here and starting with the second paper the point and thrust of the monograph begins to form. Fundamentally I believe what is being said is that there is insufficient time for terrestrial evolutionary development of bio rich molecules. Thus an extraterrestrial mechanism must exist.

I think the first paper addresses details in this argument and perhaps should be presented second after the big picture is made clear.

Also I would have liked to see this point made as a stand alone paper. Including the evolutionary time problem, the cosmic organic molecular evidence, and the evidence for buckyballs from space etc. as a solution. Perhaps this is already done in one of the references.

*Addressing the question of complex organs such as the eye is good. See page 22. This is one of the problems with the incremental trial and error evolution theory and leads to bifurcational change. It is good that this is pointed out as one of the necessary next steps in undersanding

On the down side I do not see a coherent presentation of the actual physics presented in a way which I , with my limited knowledge at this instant can understand. For example:

Page 2 – mid page " biology is a product of the twisted laws of nature derived from cosmic symmetry breaking"

Page 4 – sec 2.3 " The consequences of this symmetry-breaking differentiation lead to all the complex structures.."

"How does symmetry breaking lead to complex structures?" I mean is not this such a general statement as to be almost meaningless?

For example I could claim gravity is the force that leads to feet. If we did not have gravity we would not have developed feet, true. But have I said a lot about the development of feet?