Biocosmology - Chris C King

David W. Deamer, Ph.D.

Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry University of California

Santa Cruz CA 95064 (831) 459 5158

David Deamer <deamer@hydrogen.ucsc.edu>

The King manuscript is the single most extraordinary paper I have ever been asked to review. It is a work of intellectual passion, an attempt to find

a grand pattern that relates life on Earth to fundamental cosmic principles. I have read it several times now, looking for nuggets of useful

wisdom that seemingly must be there. I found many nuggets, but I'm not sure how useful they are, particularly to an experimental scientist such as

myself.

The main thesis is that universal symmetry-breaking processes have ultimate significance in the cosmos, and that life is an inevitable product, a kind

of fractal structure growing out from asymmetric forces acting at the quantum level. The author uses a variety of examples to make this point, which range over the entire gamut of human knowledge. The topics are illustrated with beautiful works of scientific art, although often the

figures seem to be chosen more for esthetic value than explanatory purposes.

I can see this manuscript as an epic poem of science, carrying the reader lightly through an amazing fabric of ideas, facts and speculations, woven with the thread of symmetry breaking and fractal properties. But the scope is almost impossibly broad, and as a result the discussion is often sketchy and even cryptic. I'm sure that the more cryptic phrases likely have meaning for the author, but readers will be baffled.

I looked hard, but could find no actual errors in the manuscript. In other words, the level of scholarship is high. The main problem for me is that I did not find the attempted integration to lead anywhere useful. It came across as a pattern of linked concepts ranging from quantum physics to cosmology and everything between, but was finally not satisfying in saying anything truly new and significant.

Should it be published in Complexity? This would appear to be an editorial choice, since I am not familiar with the standards set by the journal. I would like to see it published someplace so that others can enjoy it as I have.

Comment in reply:

The although the paper is very beautifully presented it is not a valid criticism of the theory to call it

'art' as opposed to 'science'. In fact it is a mis-construed and prejudical statement made in deceptively disarming 'terms of endearment'.

The theory sets out clear cosmological conditions pivotal to fractal complexity interaction in biogenesis.

Moreover the theory is clearly testable as a sceintific theory, for example comparison of life forms from distinct planets would immediately confirm or deny major aspects of the cosmological thesis in all epochs priebiotic and evolutionary.

Neither is it appropriate to claim the theory doesn't make valid suggstions concerning practical experiments on Earth. In fact the author would claim an enitely new gneration of non-linear interactive experiments with large scale cmplex molecular systems in the form of a biogenic reactor assisted with high technology in the form of computer controlled chromatographic mass spectrometer analysis could enable the study of a whole new gneration of autocatalytic and interface experiments which could test major aspects of the idea in a similar way to high energy accelerator experiments in particle physics.

Chris King

Dear Chris - As I mentioned in my earlier email, I did not make a recommendation, but left it to the editor's discretion. Here is what I wrote, just so that you will have some possibly useful feedback. I don't think their answer contradicts what I said - the editor just decided that it was appropriate for their journal.

I am pretty certain that you will not be able to publish Biocosmology in an ordinary scientific journal. There is one extraordinary online journal called Leonardo - probably I have mentioned it before, and you might look into publishing there. Here is the URL: http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/whatsnew.html

The only other possibility I see is to set up your own website and publish electronically, or simply publish it as a small book on your own. Sorry not to be more helpful - please keep me posted on your progress. Dave

Dear Chris - I have now had a chance to read your paper. First I will praise your effort. It is a unique vision of life in the universe, having extraordinary breadth, and contains a philosophical thread that makes it as much a work of art as science. As a working scientist, I read the paper to enjoy the scope of ideas, particularly the symmetry breaking and other links you develop for the way life fits into the rest of the universe. As

an experimentalist, I did not get much out of it. The paper is a vast explanation, an attempt to find larger patterns of encompassing universal laws, but does not provide a way to test the ideas presented. In a strange way, they are too big to be tested experimentally.

You asked earlier whether I would agree to act as a referee - none of the journals for which I act as referee would accept the paper. You mentioned Complex Systems - I really don't have the expertise to be a referee for that journal. In fact, because it is unique, I would guess that the paper will not easily fit into the usual sorts of publications. There is one

other possibility - you should visit the website given below - MIT Press might just be able to convince themselves that it is worth publishing in Leonardo, either as a short book or as an electronic version.

http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/Leonardo/

The other possibility is to publish it yourself, again as a book or online at your website. I am sure that many people will read it with interest. Sorry that I can't be of more help - if you do get it published, please let me know. Best wishes - Dave

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?

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