Biocosmology - Chris C King

You use many exceedingly flowery phrases

Page 22 bottom – " bifurcational enhances the immense optimality in survival of accessing the fundametal quantum mode of directional photon absorbtion

… it takes a while for the reader to decode this kind of phrase

But really more important I do not see bifurcation or symmetry breaking as a cause or explanation as much as a byproduct of our description. We built linear math, we find that nature is not that simple, we give a name to a condition which describes that it is not that simple. If I substitute the words " not that simple" were you use "bifurcation" I would still have pretty much the same arguments.

I would drop section 13: page 33 – yes of course who would not agree with these sentiments, and of course everything is connected to everything, so I suppose bringing up the evils of "religious dominion over woman" is also part of everything but does it really belong here? I think you are cramming some of your personal social needs and motivations onto the work.

I would like to say I appreciate this effort and for me the most valuable is the composite and review nature of the work especially since it points to the problems we still face. In fact I think an " Emperors New Clothes" article simply listing the problems and difficulties in our scientific mind set would be very helpful. WE are too convinced we know the answers when in actuality science does a very poor job of explaining any of the important " religious" flavored questions – which are actually the most important.

I would also like to say that the objective reality explanation is not adequate. So complex bifurcating molecules are part of an important story, which I believe should be worked out in more detail and I applaud your effort, but I believe the story is not complete in principle.

Your references to a 4d world for example and a big crunch and our need to treasure our biodiversity till it happens presupposes a specific objective reality model, within which you want to work out the details of life evolution.

I believe that personal experiences happen apriori and we make up an objective world as an explanation. In other words the big bang did not happen first and it is not our job to figure out how we evolved from it as a meant to understanding life. Rather we are confronted with result of experiments and personal experiments and we postulate the big bang as an explanational requirement of our thinking process. This is not solipsism. I believe in a reality but also believe that the only way to know it is through symbolic references

– hence scientists are building symbolic structures (theories and papers) which are supposed to solve certain life problems i.e. what is the best thing to do now?

For me progress can be made by understanding the needs of our thinking process and the role which reality models play in it. I believe reality models have evolved and a 4D universe is one of the evolutionary phases. Further I believe the next phase will be an event model in which we will become consciously aware of the future and past all at once and we will make decisions which change paths of behavior as extended operations in time all at once. I think the days of step by step cause and effect are numbered. Instead we will recognize changes in paths can take place without advancing the clock and we will think much more in patterns.

So you can see that I appreciate your work since I strongly believe that ideas which have worked in the past are never wrong but will be incorporated into a new context. Cause and effect development of biology in the cosmos through complexity is an important piece of the 4D reality story but will not lead to a fundamental improvement of our understanding of life for that I believe the story will need to be placed in a new context.

Comment in reply:

I have taken many of your comments into account in a final editing run of the paper and will reply in detail shortly.

Chris

From: Sharon <smcghee@worldnet.att.net>

Keywords: millennium

Biocosmology is visually compelling, and technically quite beyond me. Peer review Chris's work? You got to be kidding! It is peerless!;-)

But I think I found a typo-on the bottom line of the first page: it should read "drunkard's walk OR Brownian motion," right?

I am awed by the breadth of subjects mastered: physical and organic chemistry, quantum and particle physics, chaos theory, astro-physics, micro-biology, evolutionary biology, thermodynamics, genetics, Taoism, etc. I cannot understand, only marvel.

So, my fall-back position is to ask myself a question about what I do know: I notice charts, diagrams, graphs, equations, numerous citations from a wide range of scientific journals, and the Biocosmology monograph, in some way, itself a convergence of *these* objects, all recognizable

(and respected) in the world of science. And the paper's conclusion (which I can only guess ties in with Teilhard, right?), quasi-religious, in the

sense that all these processes described (inscribed) are at work in dynamic nature and have a sacred aspect, a sacred -- even a numinous -- dimension.

This is the onto-theological position; modern heir to ancient animism and the creation myths that well up from the depths across all human cultures. >From Meister Eckhart to Teilhard de Chardin, the sacred has been psychologically projected onto reality. With the tragic death of God, these luminous visions fall back into the psyche that originated them.

Instead of *analogia entis,* modern theology gives us *analogia anima* or *analogia psyche,* a beggar's stew in comparison with what we've lost when the universe became deontologized.

One day, a historian of the future will write (?) a genealogy of onto-theology, a social studies of onto-theology. Perhaps Biocosmology will be a chapter in that story.

Good luck Chris!

--Glen McGhee

component wave functions ....

can making the Bohm theory transactional solve this problem?

I'm not sure it can. Do you think Goldstein can do this? How does this solve the problem of subjective intent?

kind regards, Chris King

From: "Rita Pizzi" <pizzi@dti.unimi.it>

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

Subject: RE: Brain-mind cosmology monograph

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:24:53 +0200

X-Priority: 3 (Normal)

Importance: Normal

Dear Chris,

Thank you for your material.

Your topic is extremely fascinating and I saw your deep effort in showing the formal motivations of your thesis.

Surely your theory has a great potential, and I think that you should have the possibilities of a deeper inspection and diffusion, by means of international exchanges with other scientists.

Unfortunately, I am not an expert in the complex issues you are handling, thus I can't help you more than this. But I wish you the best luck,

Rita

From: Christopher Davia <davia@andrew.cmu.edu>

Subject: Re: Brain-mind cosmology and qm

Hi Chris,

Yes, I enjoyed meeting you too. Its a pity that we did not have more time to exchange ideas.

As for your request. You may not be aware but, I am not a PhD. I was invited to do research at CMU (Carnegie Mellon University) in Pittsburgh as a result of a paper that I originally wrote in order to get onto a Doctorate program in the UK. I was actually accepted into the Cognitive Science program at Sussex - unfortunately, I could not get the funding to pursue this opportunity. Luckily, however, Professor Patricia Carpenter, whom had already received a copy, offered me a research position for two years - coming to an end in August.

Like your good self, I have been a voice in the wilderness, trying to be heard and, most importantly, understood.

I have been examining your pdf file - very, very interesting. You and I seem to have overlapping ideas.

Please take the time and examine my own web site - www.psy.cmu.edu/~davia/mbc

I have also been thinking about the cosmological implications of the ideas I am working on.

I believe that life is an extension of a fundamental quantum ontology - this may require some explaining - more if you are interested.

On a more basic level. I argue that the twin themes of travelling waves and excitable media are the hallmarks of living processes. In short, it is my opinion that the brain should be considered primarily as an excitable medium. Consciousness is to be corellated with the spatio/temporal evolution of travelling waves the forms of which are dependent upon the way in which areas of the brain are excited or suppressed consequent upon stimulus. Essentailly, I suggest that the senses have the effect of structuring the medium. So, to contrast the brain with the heart - the travelling wave that moves through excitable tissues in the heart (responsible for contraction) evolve dependent upon the structure of these tissues. The brain, on the other hand, is structured, moment by moment, by the senses.

On the cosmological level. I was interested to read that the formation of galaxies seem to be dependent upon the formation of black holes at their heart. The initial collapse of the black hole causes a massive shock wave to move outwards that 'catalyses' the formation of stars and planets. I have recently been toying with the idea that we can consider the 'unformed' galaxy as an excitable medium. The shock wave seems to bear a resemblance to a travelling wave.

Write soon

Chris

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:56:16 +0200

From: Guenter Mahler <mahler@theo1.physik.uni-stuttgart.de>

To: king@math.auckland.ac.nz

Dear Chris,

thank you for your email and the reference to your book project.

I am a humble theoretical physiscist only, so I cannot judge your most ambituous undertaking in full. E.g. I had to leave out most of the chemistry. Nevertheless, here are some remarks:

1.In the whole, I think, the 2 parts I had access to, give a very interesting and thought-provoking reading. I would certainly like to see it completed and published.

2.From the subject I see the text to have a two-fold function: On the one.hand side it summarizes a number of ideas of contemporary science, on the other hand side it tries to outline and support the authors' main ideas.

3.From its narrative style I conclude that the intended readership will be the "well-educated laymen".

I would suggest to include a glossary of the most important scientific terms, which are now only partly given as footnotes. If the reader was to have any chance to remain critical and not to be overrun by the expert author, this would be an essential precondition.

4.There are many interesting remarks: statements referring to hard science, opinions (on open scientific issues), but also speculation. I understand, it is very difficult to explicitly mark these borderlines in all cases. However, some attempts in this direction should be worthwhile. In particular as there is an unavoidable gradient in clarity from scientific to the other statements.

5.The meaming of "non-linear" quantum mechanics is rather unclear to me. One has to be very careful about this term; in quantum optics non-linearity refers to a rather special representation (product-operators for the harmonica' oscillator).

6."Biocosmology" is a very strong and demanding wording. There have been terms like Astrophysical Bio-Chemistry , in which one studies the occurrence of biological material in the cosmos etc. At least from the abstract the term biocosmology remains rather faint.

7.The hard problem in consciousness studies according to Chalmers is mentioned. As far as I can see it is not solved in this book either. It should be clarified to what extent we learn something new.

8.As far as I understand, the "transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics" is just this: an interpretation. I doubt whether the elements of this interpretation can be given so much "reality" as to produce an "explanation" for anticipatory consciousness etc.

9.I am not happy with the description of sexuality in terms of "symmetry breaking as a wave-particle complementary". I think, concepts loose their meaning if applied too far away from where they have been defined.

10.The meaning of fractals in your picture of cosmology is not clear to me. Fractals are mentioned only on few occasions.

11.The book will have to compete with those of other authors like Stuart Kaufmann. This will be the easier the better it can be condensed into a central message by which it can be identified. For this to happen the message should be short and easily understandable.

The prospective book has a very broad scope indeed. I expect it to become an interesting and important contribution.

Best regards, Guenter.

--

Prof. Dr. G. Mahler

Institute for Theoretical Physics I Pfaffenwaldring 57 D-70550 Stuttgart Tel.: ++49-(0)711 685-5101

Fax: ++49-(0)711 685-4909

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 21:23:03 -0700

From: David Chalmers <chalmers@arizona.edu>

To: king@math.auckland.ac.nz

hi chris, it was nice to meet you at the conference. thanks for the manuscript. it looks interesting and creative, but i don't think i have the expertise to evaluate it properly, so i'll have to decline

the invitation to provide any semi-official comments. i wish you the best of luck with it, though.

cheers,

dave.

Short Review on Chris King’s Biocosmology Monograph

Huping Hu, Ph.D., J.D.

In a two-part monograph entitled "Biocosmology," author Chris King presents his research over the last 26 years (since 1977) into the cosmology of life including consciousness. The work described therein is a systematic and enlightening synthesis of the author’s view on life and its place in the universe. It may be said that King’s work supports a new anthropic principle based on stochastic bifurcation, quantum complementarity and transactional interpretations of quantum mechanics. Therefore, if it turns out that he is correct, we would all have to change our current thinking on the subject and be prepared to enter a new paradigm of life science.

According to King, the life form as we know it is the product of a consummating interactive process defined at the beginning of the universe in the cosmic symmetry-breaking. King is also advancing the radical view that evolution is not driven by random mutation plus selective fixation of advantageous configurations as incremental historical accidents but by stochastic opportunistic process plus an optimizing selective response to bifurcation in the natural, sexual and ecological landscape. Ontologically, King suggests that the existential realm is a complementarity between subjective consciousness and the objective physical universe by which mind expresses itself in the physical world as having free-will. Thus, free-will originates from chaotic instability and its fractal interaction with quantum uncertainty.

To support these daring claims, King cites in his monograph numerous research articles and data from the existing literature. Undoubtedly, if King would have provided his own unique predictions based on his theory plus experimental verifications of these predictions, his monograph would be even more persuasive. Perhaps that is what King has in mind as his next project.

Dated April 28, 2003