The MIRACULOUS Return of My "Darwin's Cathedral" Book

Is religion a useful biological "adaptation", as claimed by biologist David Sloan Wilson, author of the 2002 book Darwin's Cathedral - Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, or is religion a "delusion" and a "mind virus", as claimed by biologist Richard Dawkins, author of the 2006 book The God Delusion ?   Or, as I claim, is religion BOTH a delusion and an adaptation?

This posting is about these two important books, but first, I must tell you the "miraculous" story of how, against all odds, I happened to get my copy of Darwin's Cathedral in the first place, how I stupidly lost that book, and the amazing story of how I got it back.

The first dictionary definition of the word "miraculous" is "of the nature of a miracle, super-natural". I don't believe there is anything SUPER-NATURAL on Earth or anywhere in our Universe, which is why I put "miraculous" in "scare quotes". 

Therefore I must use the second dictionary definition of "miraculous":
"suggesting a miracle, marvelous".

THE LAWS OF NATURE AND OF NATURE'S GOD

I believe there are a fixed set of Laws of Nature that apply to: Every thing (Energy/Matter) Every where and Every time. (Space/Time – Past/Present/Future)

Therefore, NOTHING is Super-Natural. So, for me, “Miraculous” implies a favorable outcome that is against the odds, and therefore remarkable.

When you look at the Declaration of Independence (July 4th 1776), you'll see the following immortal words:

“WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, …”

Note the initial capitalization of "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God" in the original Declaration. (In some reference books and online sources they have changed the upper-case "N" to a lower-case, "n", distorting the intended meaning of the founders of the historic American experiment in self-governance.)

The "Laws of Nature" are Universal. They are the basis upon which every thing in our Universe operates, Naturally, at every time and every place.

For me, "Nature's God" IS Nature, per se, and means that "God" is inherent in our Universe.

MY DARWIN'S CATHEDRAL BOOK

The beat-up book in the image below is my copy of Darwin's Cathedral. It is nothing short of "MIRACULOUS" that I got it in the first place, and that I got it back after stupidly leaving it on top of my car and driving away!

Click here to read more

How I Got the Book
My friend and colleague at The Villages Philosophy Club, Robert Altobello, sent me an email recommending the book after he heard one of my talks where I mentioned "useful myths". Robert is a Professor Emeritus at Empire State College (SUNY) and used Darwin's Cathedral in a course he taught.

I ordered a copy and thanked him for the recommendation, adding that I personally knew the author, David Sloan Wilson, from my graduate studies at Binghamton University (SUNY) - and he knew me!

I earned my Masters and PhD degrees in Systems Science when I was in my 50s, decades after my Bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering. What are the odds of that?

On the basis of that Bachelors degree, I had a successful career at IBM, having risen to the level of Senior Systems Engineer. However, when my wife and daughters earned graduate degrees I was "forced" to go back to college, part-time, and get my Masters and PhD in Systems Science. (My wife added a Masters in Computer Science to her Bachelors in Chemistry, our middle daughter got her MBA in Marketing, and our oldest and youngest got their PhDs in Immunology and Neuroscience) ,

I was studying Systems Science in the Watson School of Engineering. David Sloan Wilson was a Biology professor in the School of Arts and Science. How did we meet?

Well, my PhD Advisor was Howard Pattee, a physicist with great interest in Complex Biological Systems (Origin of Life, Artificial Life, Biosemiotics, Hierarchy Theory, Game Theory…) and David came over to the School of Engineering to join Howard's seminars.

As a result, I became interested in David's use of Game Theory to explore the survival advantages of altruism, so I began attending David's Biology lectures. At that time, I was working on a computer simulation of Evolution and Natural Selection. David became interested in my model and invited me to present it to students at his seminars. What are the odds of that?

The graphic below shows David's 1998 book, Unto Others, that was responsible for his being designated "the American apostle of group selection" by famed British Biologist Richard Dawkins, a self-described Atheist, and author of The God Delusion. David's argument in favor of altruism and the importance of Natural Selection at the group level, may be summarized by the slogan in the graphic below:

"Selfishness beats altruism within groups, 

altruistic groups beat selfish groups, 

everything else is commentary".

The graphic also shows the "Darwin Fish" (like a Jesus Fish but with feet) that David gave me when my wife and I attended one of his annual Darwin's Birthday parties at his home in Binghamton. That Darwin Fish has an honored position on the side of a bookcase in our apartment.

David and I had several great discussions about altruism, with me taking the side that self-sacrifice is mainly due to kin-selection and reciprocal benefit selection, while he supports the view that pure altruism actually occurs.   

How I Lost the Book
My wife and I live at Freedom Pointe, an Independent Living facility in The Villages, FL. We use a folding cart to carry stuff between our car and our apartment. So, around noon on a beautiful Thursday afternoon, I rolled the cart to the car, and, to free my hands to fold the cart, I "temporarily" put the book on the roof of  the car. We got into the car and I drove to our hairdressers.

When we got there, I couldn't find the book and quickly realized I had forgotten to take it off the car roof and place it inside the car.  When we returned to Freedom Pointe, I carefully searched the parking lot, and, not finding the book there, I checked with the concierge hoping someone had found it and turned it in. No luck.

How I Found the Book

The next day was a drizzly Friday, and John Griffin, my friend and fellow-resident at Freedom Pointe, was scheduled to drive our carpool to the Lake Miona Recreation Center for our weekly Philosophy Club meeting.  As we got into his car at 3:30PM, I told him the sad story about losing my copy of Darwin's Cathedral.

When I drive to the Philosophy Club meetings, I turn right out of the Freedom Pointe parking lot onto El Camino Real, drive southeast to Morse Blvd which goes south to Sumter Landing, then Stillwater west to Buena Vista, and south to Lake Miona. John usually turns left onto El Camino Real, northwest to Buena Vista, and then south to Lake Miona.

Fortunately for me and my copy of Darwin's Cathedral, it was John's turn to drive. He took the Buenos Aires exit from the Freedom Pointe parking lot across El Camino and turned left. About a half-block later he saw something on the roadway that he thought might be my book! 

He made a U-turn on El Camino, back to Buenos Aires, and another U-turn for a second pass. John confirmed that something that might be my book was definitely there, resting on the dashed line that divides the two lanes of traffic! He pulled into a medical office parking lot on the right side of El Camino and drove back to near where he had seen the book. I got out, and when there was a break in the heavy traffic, dashed out into the roadway and picked up the wet, battered mess that was my book! 

So, it had been more than 24 hours since I stupidly left the book on the roof of my car. The book had stubbornly clung to the roof as I drove through the parking lot, turned right onto Buenos Aires and left onto El Camino. It only flew off when I accelerated to normal speed on El Camino Real. Tire marks on several pages indicated that it had been run over multiple times.  

Had it been my turn to drive, we would have gone the other way (right instead of left) and never seen the book. Had I not told John about losing it, he wouldn't have made the connection between the road mess and my book. Had the book been further to the left or right of the dashed line, even eagle-eyed John might have missed it. 

However, the book was found!  What are the odds of that?

When we got home that afternoon, I flattened the pages as best I could, piled several heavy books atop the wet mess, and waited a week for it to dry out.  The image above shows the result. A "relic" of a "miraculous" event. If a new Religion based on my unique contributions to Human Civilization is ever founded and if it successfully replicates over an extended period of time for a long time, that beat up copy of Darwin's Cathedral will be a treasured item!  Of course, for another $20 I could have obtained a new copy from Amazon. A new copy, with flat, un-tire-marked pages, would have been easier to read. However, this beat-up copy, with its remarkable history of survival and return, against all odds, is invaluable to me.

OVERVIEW OF DARWIN'S CATHEDRAL

The main points I get from David Sloan Wilson from this book are:

1. AT THE GROUP LEVEL, HUMAN SOCIETIES MAY BE CONSIDERED ORGANISMS 
2. RELIGION IS A USEFUL BIOLOGICAL ADAPTATION.
3. TRUE ALTRUISM IS REAL (AND NOT SIMPLY KIN-SELECTION AND RECIPROCAL-BENEFIT SELECTION)

Darwin himself believed in Group-Level Adaptation.

“There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good would be victorious over most other tribes, and this would be natural selection.” [Darwin 1871]

Prior to the 1960’s Group-Level Adaptation was generally accepted as valid.

Adaptation in the Context of Darwinian Evolution and Natural Selection 

The “Darwin Machine”:

[Repeat] ⇛Variation ⇛ Survival ⇛ Reproduction [Forever] 

Variation: “Random” changes to the Genotype (gene-level copying errors and crossover combinations of genes from mother and father) as well as changing behavioral norms (memes) of groups of animals, inculcated early in life.

Survival: Differential “fitness” to the Environment of the Phenotype (individual organism), and the Extended-Phenotype (Society). Natural climate variation and evolution of other organisms causes continual changes to the Environment.

Reproduction: Conception, nourishment and protection of succeeding generations, passing the ‘fittest” genes and memes to the next generation.

An Adaptation is a change that promotes Survival and Reproduction. 

Is Altruism an Adaptation? 

Situation: A Predator approaches a Group of animals. An Individual member of the group spots the Predator. Does that Individual:

• ALTRUISTICALLY - Shout out a warning to the others, thereby exposing him- or her-self to the Predator, or 
• SELFISHLY - Run and hide (Freeloader or Free Rider). 
  

BETWEEN-GROUP SURVIVAL. Groups with many Altruistic Members have a SURVIVAL advantage over Groups with many Freeloader members.

WITHIN-GROUP SURVIVAL. Individuals who are Freeloaders have a SURVIVAL advantage over Individuals who are Altruistic. Therefore, Groups that penalize Freeloaders and indoctrinate members to Altruistically shout out, have a Survival advantage over groups that do not.

The above raises these questions:

• If your Group severely penalizes Freeloaders is your self-sacrifice really Altruistic? 
• If your Group uses Religious Indoctrination to make you behave unselfishly to gain some advantage in a (fictional) “Afterlife”, is your self-sacrifice really Altruistic? 
  

The answer to the above questions depends upon your definition or view of REALITY:

1. FACTUAL REALITY Rational “Truth” is the “religion” or “gold standard” of SCIENCE. Whether or not it enhances society and civilization. 
2. PRACTICAL BEHAVIORAL ADAPTEDNESS Adaptation that enhances survival and reproduction in the real world is the “gold standard” of RELIGION. Whether or not it is “factual” or literally true. 

My Take on the Message of Darwin's Cathedral

“Scientists” scorn the “other-worldly” focus of the second view of reality. They ask "How can intelligent people believe this 'delusional Bible-thumping'?”

Well, a religious person may reply: “'Factual truth' Implies faith in human rationality! Based on history, including recent political events, how can anyone, much less a scientist, believe in human rationality?

David Sloan Wilson is still actively pursuing his life work. Robert Altobello sent me a link to a wonderful video of David with the Dalai Lama in India just four months ago! Please click this link: David and the Lama's Den to read my Blog posting about this historic meeting. A link in my Blog posting will take you to the video which is well worth the two hours to watch it fully.

Religion and Science Arose and Progressed Differently

The above graphic shows the different paths taken in development of:

• Religion (top-row of graphic). From the earliest Primitive period of human tribal societies, it was "Our God vs Yours". If we were successful in a conflict, our God was superior to yours. That evolved into:
•  A Polytheistic Situation, such as that developed by the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman civilizations, with a panoply of Gods atop Mt. Olympus, cooperating and competing with each other as they each ruled their domains of influence on Earth. 
• A Monotheistic Situation, such as that attributed to Abraham (ca 2000 BC) the Patriarch of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. According to this account, there is a Universal God.
• (I hesitate to say "One God" because that implies that God may be numbered, and there may be two or more who might disagree with each other, or that God might have Heavenly Agents, such as Angels, some of whom may, like Lucifer (Satan) oppose God and be "fallen angels", or that the "Godhead" may have separate aspects, such as "The Father,  the Son, and the Holy Spirit". Kind of a "one God at least" situation). 
• Moses (ca 1300 BC) is credited with leading the Hebrews out of Egyptian slavery and into the Holy Land of Israel. 
• NOTE: If I have time, I'll recount the "true" story of how Moses actually got the Ten Commandments, as related to me by a Jewish friend far more Religious than I am. 
• Science (bottom row of graphic). Careful observation and study of the natural world utilizing telescopes, microscopes and other specialized scientific instrumentation. 
• That evolved into a hierarchy of domains of science: Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Evolution and Natural Selection, Atomic Physics, and other specialties. 
• Albert Einstein (1879-1955) is perhaps the most influential person whose lifetime overlaps mine. He is responsible for key initial work in the areas of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. When Einstein came to the United States, he was accused of being an Atheist. He denied the charge and said:  "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind. (1929) "
• It is fitting that Benedict [or as Jews call him "Baruch", Hebrew for "Blessed"] Spinoza (1632-77) was a lens grinder. It is said that he is the last of the ancient philosophers and the  first of the modern philosophers. All modern philosophers look through the philosophical "lens" he crafted. Although some may consider Spinoza an Atheist, it is clear to me that, as a Pantheist, Spinoza was the most God-Infused person we Jews ever produced.  
• NOTE:  We all know that the Jewish community in Holland, in which Spinoza lived, found it necessary to excommunicate him. In my free online novel, see here, the excommunication of Spinoza is described as a mistake. However -according to Izzy, an important Jewish character in my novel- “Like all peoples, we sometimes make mistakes. Our mistakes tend to be big ones! Historic ones even! Our mistakes have contributed more to the knowledge of human civilization than the non-mistakes of everyone else combined! For instance when Einstein said his suggestion of a ‘cosmological constant’ was his ‘greatest blunder’. That turned out to be the key that unlocked our current understanding of the unified field theory! Our excommunication of Spinoza was indeed a blunder but it turned out to be the key that unlocked all of modern philosophy. Had we kept him to ourselves, modern western thought might be quite different.” 
• Potential Modern Merger (right side of graphic). Perhaps the first line of our Declaration of Independence provides a clue into how the tension between Religion and Science might be relaxed. Our founders cite the "Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God". For me this implies that. far from being a Creator separate from and above the Universe, "Nature IS God", fully internal and inherent in the Universe. 
• I like to contrast the "One God at Least" focus of the great Abrahamic religions with the "One God at Most" focus of my Unitarian friends, whom I find to have a wonderful sense of humor. When I lived in the Binghamton area of Upstate New York, I spent a fair amount of time in the Unitarian Church where, they say "Atheists go to pray", and, of course, they pray 'to Whom it may concern". Here is a great Unitarian riddle: What does the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac do all night?
• The Gaia Hypothesis "... or Gaia theory or Gaia principle, proposes that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet. The hypothesis was formulated by the chemist James Lovelock and co-developed by the microbiologist Lynn Margulis in the 1970s. Lovelock named the idea after Gaia, the primordial goddess who personified the Earth in Greek mythology. …"
• In the marvelous 1979 book, Gödel,_Escher,_Bach, by Douglas Hofstadter, "Aunt Hillary" IS the PERSONIFICATION (or perhaps the "spirit") of a well-organized and coordinated Anthill. 
• When we look at an anthill we see swarms of individual ants scurrying hither and yon, with no obvious purpose, direction, or General Director. Closer study reveals a well-organized army of ants who built and maintain the anthill, obtain food and other supplies from the vicinity, remove refuse, protect from attackers, and other necessary tasks. Inside the anthill we observe the Queen Ant laying eggs, served by a bunch of worker ants, and, when required, serviced by drone ants who impregnate her.
• Important as she is, the Queen ant is clearly not the General Director, but merely a replaceable part of the machine that is the Anthill! For example, when the Anteater comes, individual ants scurry away, frightened that they may be eaten. However, "Aunt Hillary", welcomes the regular visits of "Doctor Anteater", whom she regards as a mutually beneficial gourmet who improves anthills. 
• Why have anteaters, as a species, evolved to perform beneficial cleaning services to anthills? To answer that obvious question, imagine that a particularly voracious type of anteater arose from the Darwinian process of Evolution and Natural Selection. At first, voracious anteaters might have a survival and reproduction advantage over less selfish anteaters. However, as the population of voracious anteaters grew, their activities would severely stress and eventually destroy their source of food - anthills! Therefore, the voracious variation of anteater would, over time, starve itself to extinction. Then, ants and well-behaved anteaters from nearby valleys would invade and re-populate the valley with "fitter" (in the Darwinian sense) residents.
• An anthill and an anteater, or even the multiple anthills and anteaters of a given valley ecology, are but a small part of  the flora and fauna of the totality of competing and cooperating species. Just as Hofstadter imagines Aunt Hillary as the PERSONIFICATION (or Gaia) of the well-run anthill, we might imagine "Valerie" as the Gaia of a well-balanced valley ecology. 
• Of course, a valley ecology is but a small part of the ecology of an island or a peninsula, or a continent, ... or Earth. We may personify the Organizing Process or Principle or General Director, at any level, as the Gaia of that domain.  
• Thus, living organisms have the ability to form a Self-Regulating, Synergistic System. If, at any level, they fail to do so, life will falter in that domain, and be invaded and replaced by better balanced alternative ecologies. To me, that is the description of the Nature and Purpose and Function of "Nature's God". 

OVERVIEW OF THE GOD DELUSION

The main points I get from Richard Dawkins in this book are:

• DAWKINS IS A RESPECTED BIOLOGIST AND SELF-DESCRIBED ATHEIST
• HE CALLS RELIGION A "DELUSION" AND A "MIND VIRUS"
• HE SAYS THERE IS A "GENERALIZED PROCESS FOR OPTIMIZING BIOLOGICAL SPECIES"
• HE NOTICES THAT "NO KNOWN CULTURE LACKS SOME VERSION OF  [WASTEFUL RELIGION]

Dawkins on "Brain Virus"

“Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them. Such trusting obedience is valuable for survival… 

“But the flip side of trusting obedience is slavish gullibility. The inevitable by-product is vulnerability to infection by mind viruses. … 

“Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it.”

Dawkins Acknowledgement that Darwinian Selection Tolerates Wasteful Religion

About half-way through the book, Dawkins finally acknowledges, however grudgingly, the facts. He writes:  

“[W]e should ask what pressure or pressures exerted by natural selection originally favoured the impulse toward religion. …  

“Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant; and Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates waste. …  

“no known culture lacks some version of the time-consuming, wealth-consuming, hostility provoking rituals, the anti-factual, counter-productive fantasies of religion." 

[pg 163 …166]

A Generalized Process for Optimizing Biological Species

Dawkins is even more specific when he writes the following that could be interpreted as implying a "Nature's God" that we might call the "General Optimizing Director" inherent in the "Laws of Nature" that is Omnipresent = Everywhere, Omnipotent = all-powerful, and Omniscient = All-knowing!

“It is clear that here on Earth we are dealing with a generalized process for optimizing biological species, a process that works all over the planet, on all continents and islands, and at all times. … [Omnipresent]

"if we wait another ten million years, a whole new set of species will be as well adapted to their ways of life as today’s species are to theirs. [Omnipotent] 

"This is a recurrent, predictable, multiple phenomenon, not a piece of statistical luck recognized with hindsight.” [Omniscient]  

[Dawkins, p139, "Omnipresent", "Omnipotent", and "Omniscient" added by me.] 

My Take on the Message of The God Delusion

Dawkins is correct in denying factual reality to the Super-Natural claims of any and all religions.

However, as I've pointed out in the two Dawkins quotes above, he is totally with me on the reality of an absolutely NATURAL force inherent in the Laws of Nature that accomplishes much of what established religions attribute to a Super-Natural God. (Namely, being  Omnipresent = Everywhere, Omnipotent = All-powerful, and Omniscient = All-knowing!)

It seems that Dawkins is particularly harsh when any recognized scientist makes positive comments regarding God. For example, he knocks Stephen Hawking for ending his 1988 A Brief History of Time with a reference to God. Hawking wrote:

… if we discover a complete theory [of physics], it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God. [p13 emphasis added]

Dawkins also quotes and criticizes Einstein for some of his comments related to his belief in the existence of a kind of  "God" that approximates what I take "Nature's God" to mean. I quoted this one above, but it bears repeating. Einstein said:

I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind. (1929)

Dare We Name "Nature's God"?

In Judaism there is a tradition that we do not pronounce the Holy Name of God. The Name was only pronounced once a year by the Chief Rabbi in the Jerusalem Temple. Indeed, it is said we no longer know how to pronounce that Name and those who pronounce it as Yahweh are incorrect.

"After the Babylonian Exile (6th century bce), and especially from the 3rd century bce on, Jews ceased to use the name Yahweh for two reasons. As Judaism became a universal rather than merely local religion, the more common noun Elohim, meaning 'God,' tended to replace Yahweh to demonstrate the universal sovereignty of Israel’s God over all others. At the same time, the divine name was increasingly regarded as too sacred to be uttered; it was thus replaced vocally in the synagogue ritual by the Hebrew word Adonai ('My Lord'), which was translated as Kyrios ('Lord') in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures." 

As I've also noted above, I believe the "Darwin's Machine" IS "Nature's God":

[Repeat] ⇛Variation ⇛ Survival ⇛ Reproduction [Forever] 

and in the light of my last two quotes from Dawkins regarding a Generalized Process for Optimizing Biological Species,  we might call it the Generalized Process for Optimizing (GPO), or one of  the following:

• the General Director of Optimizing (GDO)
• the Director-General of Optimizing (DGO)
• the Optimization Director-General (ODG)
• the Optimization General Director (OGD)
• the Director of Optimization, in General (DOG) ⇚ I like this one
• the General Optimization Director (GOD)  ⇚ But this one is more  traditional!

Ira Glickstein

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

 NOT INCLUDED IN MY 

14 FEB 2020 PRESENTATION 

TO THE VILLAGES PHILOSOPHY CLUB

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

DETERMINISM: IF  THE UNIVERSE IS BOTH FINITE AND DISCRETE

DETERMINISM: Click Here for My Related Blog Items  


An Actual Example of Determinism With (and Without) Perfect Predictability

My 1995 HexLife computer simulation of evolution of life forms is a very well-controlled situation and the model for my concept of causal determinism. It is run within a PC and is therefore both finite and discrete.

I make use of the PC "random number generator" to determine when and where genetic mutations and crossovers occur, how much of the "sunlight energy" falls on any given location, and so on. However, I allow the user to select one of a number of pre-set "initial random seeds" (or make up his or her own). Thus, if something interesting happens during a given run, that run can be repeated and will proceed bit-for-bit in the exact sequence to allow the user to analyze and exactly recreate that interesting event. In that sense, HexLife is perfectly predictable, so long as the PC does not malfunction.


In any case, I was quite pleased when my HexLife program turned out to exhibit a logarithmic "power spectrum" of extinctions (many small extinctions, a lesser frequency of moderate extinctions, and few large extinctions) just as Stephen J. Gould ("punctuated equilibrium") says characterizes the evolutionary history of life on earth!

I did not specifically program HexLife to have extinctions. Each simulated organism lives its own life in accordance with the behaviors and asexuality or sexuality set in its genetic code and its interactions with other organisms. It absorbs energy and matter (which are conserved in the total simulation), and reproduces asexually (if it gains enough mass and energy) or sexually (if it gains enough mass and energy and happens to meet a suitable sized mate). It dies when it gets eaten by another organism, or has an accident, or of old age.


Although not specifically programmed to do so, the total living biomass increases as new organisms evolve and become more effective at exploiting the environment and other organisms. The biomass stabilizes as a balance is reached between resources (dead matter and energy available in each location). Then, as yet other organisms evolve, there are extinctions, which are noted as significant reductions in the living biomass. Extinctions are characterized on a logarithmic scale and, amazingly, each increment of the scale eventually gets about the same number of extinctions. That result indicated to me that I had captured, on a very small scale and under controlled conditions, some "true" aspect of evolutionary life.

"God" and His/Her Possible Powers

With respect to HexLife, I am "God" -- having made up all the rules for DNA codes and reproduction and energy and mass distribution and so on, and having written every line of Pascal code. (Therefore, *I* am the closest thing to "God" you may ever meet on Earth, so pay attention! :^)

When I start with a different set of initial conditions and/or a different initial random seed, I cannot predict in detail what will occur. Based on prior runs with different conditions, I can predict the general results: if the simulation is started with randomly-generated genetic codes, and if it does not die out early in the run, genetic diversity (number of different genomes in live organisms at any given time) will decrease and morphologic complexity (size and variability of genetic code string) will increase. After a while, these measures will stabilize. Then, there will be an extinction during which genetic diversity will increase a bit and morphologic complexity will decrease a bit. This will go on and on in sequence and there will be a power spectrum of extinctions.

Therefore, for a new run, only the general results are more or less perfectly predictable by me, but the details are not. However, if I have run the same initial conditions before, and kept the data, I know exactly, bit-for-bit, what the detailed results will be. Assuming there is a God of the Universe separate from Creation (which, as a Pantheist I do not accept), if the Earth has not been "run" before but other biological runs have been done, God only knows the general results. On the other hand, if the Universe has been run before with the same initial conditions, God can perfectly predict each and every event that will happen in full detail.


With HexLife I can intervene during a run, increasing or decreasing the strength of the "Sun". I can also stop the run or revert it to a previous data point and add or subtract organisms and/or change the genetic codes of any organisms. During the development cycle, I rewrote the Pascal code to change the "Laws of Nature" within the simulation. However, when I did these things with a situation that had been run before, any specific data I had about future events became more or less moot. 

Thus, if there is a God separate from Creation, and They perform a "miracle", God cannot predict the long-term consequences perfectly. Of course, if God has access to multiple Universes, They could put our Universe on hold while testing out a "miracle" on a doppelganger Universe and then come back and start our Universe up again with perfect predictability!

Random Number Generators and Enumerability


The random number generator that comes with the PC is pretty good and would pass most statistical tests of "randomness". However, even the best computer random number generators are not "truly random". Digital computers are "finite automata" and have a finite number of possible states. Thus, the random number sequence will, at some point, repeat itself. How often? Well, depending upon the design, it might not repeat for days or years or decades or longer -- but it *will* repeat.

Therefore, any digital computer random number generator has a sequence that is FULLY DETERMINED and ENUMERABLE. Given any initial state, it is possible to determine the exact sequence of "random" numbers that will follow and you could store each and every "random" number in that sequence on a CD or other storage medium.

Do you ever get the impression that TV programs repeat? Well, it is true. Even if you have digital HDTV "1080p" (1920 x 1080 pixels, each with 12 bits for color), that is "only" about 8 billion different FULLY PRE-DETERMINED and ENUMERABLE instantaneous pictures, most of which would look like confetti and are therefore unlikely to be broadcast. Thus, there is a much smaller number of instantaneous pictures actually broadcast. Of course, there are 50 individual pictures each second and they are presented in different orders, so the number of TV programs is enormously large, but still FULLY PRE-DETERMINED and ENUMERABLE.

It is possible, at least in principle, to enumerate all 30-minute TV programs that could be broadcast in HDTV. That enumeration would include all videos broadcast  by Osama bin Laden and all future Terrorist diatribes that will be presented in the future. Of course, it would also include many Terrorist videos that will never occur in actuality, including the one in which they apologize for 9/11 and convert to Judiasm :^)

This reminds me of the old thought experiment of the "million monkeys randomly typing on a million typewriters for a million years". They will eventually "randomly" type out all the great literature of the world.

Of course, you would have to get a million language professors to paw through all this stuff to find the gems. Imagine one professor, after years of reading gobbledygook, picking up a sheet that starts: "To be or not to be ..." (But then, it continues: "that is the gribnick? Michan&83( jkjhs nnnneo ...")

Is the Universe Both Finite and Discrete?

Although I am not sure if philosophers have made this point, I believe causal determinism depends upon the Universe being both finite and discrete (and I believe it is).

Here is my reasoning: According to chaos theory, a tiny difference in initial conditions can result in a major difference over the long-term. The example usually given is the "butterfly effect". Imagine an experiment in which the Universe is run twice with absolutely identical conditions, except, in the first run one particular butterfly flaps its wings slightly to the right and in the second slightly to the left. Well, in the first run, six months after that butterfly flap, hurricane Katrina strikes New Orleans, while in the second run, it strikes Miami.

If the Universe is continuous, that tiny difference could be 1/infinity, which, for all practical purposes, is zero. Therefore, with a difference approaching zero, all long-term determinism goes out the window. On the other hand, if the Universe is discrete, the difference must be at least one quanta of energy or matter or space or time.

There is an old thought experiment where a donkey is placed exactly midway between some food and some water and it is exactly as hungry as it is thirsty. The donkey will be exactly equally attracted in each direction and will therefore die of thirst and hunger. Of course, that experiment depends upon a level of exactness and constancy that is unlikely in the animal world. The donkey would probably sense the water before the food (or vice-versa) or, after standing motionless, would become thirsty before becoming hungry, etc.

Let's do that thought experiment a bit differently. Take a common plastic straw and stand it upright on a flat table. If there are no strong breezes or gusts, it will remain stationary, falling neither to the left or right, front or back. Now try it with a toothpick! Unless the toothpick has a flattened end, or is poked into a hole in the table, it will fall over no matter how carefully you place it. The slightest waft of air or vibration of the table will knock it over. The difference between a straw and a toothpick? One has an end with a discrete diameter, the other an end with a near-zero diameter.

We know that energy comes in discrete quanta. Since we also know energy and matter are interchangeable, that would mean matter is also quantized. That leaves only space/time, and I believe they may also come in quanta. Thus, I think it is a good guess that the Universe is discrete.

The second requirement, a finite Universe, is, I believe fairly obvious. I think the current scientific consensus is that we can look back only to the time, some 14 billion years ago, when the Universe was in a hot, dense state, and began an expansion, popularly called the "big bang". That may have been the start of the Universe - or not. (The alternative -- watch your daily newspaper -- is that the consensus will change to "continuous creation" of matter which I believe also entails continuous recycling of matter to keep the balance.) In either case, there is only a limited amount of energy/matter in the Universe.

Furthermore, the Universe is curved in some or all dimensions, which would entail space/time being finite as well. (The surface of a sphere, for 2D "flatlanders" appears infinite in that they can go forever in a given direction without reaching the "end". However, we 3D-ers recognize the sphere as finite, and we explain the delusion of the 2D-ers as being the curvature of their 2D space.) Thus, to us 3D-ers, what appears to be infinite time and space may actually be finite (and would appear so to a 4D-er or higher).

DESCRIPTION OF HEXLIFE IMAGES

The following images are from a talk about the Consequences of a Finite, Discrete, Isolated Universe, based, in part, on results from my HexLife computer simulation mentioned above. I gave that talk to The Villages Science-Technology Club in 2017.

Top-level description of my HexLife simulation.

The simplified "biology" of HexLife compared to real biological life. 

Real Life utilizes RNA to code for Amino Acids. Each group of three bases (A, G, C, and U) are called a "codon", and each codon signifies an Amino Acid, such as:

GCU==is Alanine, 

ACG==is Threonine, and so on.

In Real Life, a copying error may change a U to a C such that a different Amino Acid results. (Or a G to a C, or an A to a G, etc.

Another way a copying error may produce a different Amino Acid is called a "frame shift" where a base is not copied at all such that the three bases that follow may belong to different codons. 

HexLife includes a highly simplified version of both copying errors and frame shift.

 

HexLife plays out on a hexagonal field of 60 by 40 cells. Each cell may have a quantity of energy/matter "EnMass" plus zero or one organism. There are three different types of organism:

1. Plants: Feed on "EnMass" in the cells. 
2. Herbivores: Feed on Plants in nearby cells.
3. Carnivores: Feed on Herbivores in nearby cells.

The simulation is initialized by "randomly" distributing EnMass into each cell and populating a specified number of cells with "randomly-created" organisms. The user may select from several options. For example, 128 Plants.

The graphic below shows two of these initializing Plants. 

Example (1) This Plant, designated as Organism#38, is in a cell with 4 units of energy and 115 units of mass, and the Organism has 291 units of energy and 889 units of mass. It's Genotype (simplified modeling of Genes) is ".....MExv." and it's Phenotype , based on an L-system expansion of the Genotype,  (simplified modeling of behavior) is "L=6 Mxvxv.............................".

Example (2) This Plant, designated as Organism #30, has characteristics as listed in the graphic. 

The organisms are "pictured", based on their Phenotypes, as indicated on the graphic. Since these are primitive organisms, based on "random" creation, they are pretty simple. As Evolution and Natural Selection takes place, with organisms competing for limited resources, and the "fittest" surviving and reproducing more of  their kind, the organisms will become larger and more complex .

The graphic below shows the situation after 19 million cycles of HexLife. With Evolution and Natural Selection having done their magic, the organisms are larger and more complex. They compete with each other for limited resources, and the "fittest" survive and reproduce more of their kind. 

Example (3) This Plant, designated as Organism#102, is in a cell with 115 units of energy and 1 unit of mass, and the Organism has 354 units of energy and 876 units of mass. It's Genotype (simplified modeling of Genes) is "x#*MM$vvv." and it's Phenotype , based on an L-system expansion of the Genotype,  (simplified modeling of behavior) is "L=12 x#*MM$xMMvvv.........................". 

Example (4) is more complex and larger, with a much longer Phenotype. 

Example (5) is as indicated. 

The organisms are "pictured", based on their Phenotypes, as indicated on the graphic.

The graphic below indicates how the 64 codons are interpreted by HexLife during the Morphogenesis process (expansion of Genotype to Phenotype), and the actions of the Phenotype during a cycle in which it is serviced (sensing, moving, eating, asexual or sexual reproduction, etc.)

Closeup view of the playing field. Primary feeders (Plants) are Green. Secondary feeders (Herbivores) are Red. Tertiary feeders (Carnivores) are Pink. The size of the symbol indicates the relative size of the given organism. Organisms are Fixed in place (cannot move out of its cell) unless they have an "M" in its Phenotype. Plants may only eat dead EnMass in nearby cells. Herbivores eat Plants in nearby cells. Carnivores eat Herbivores in nearby cells.  Organisms reproduce Asexually unless they have a "$" in their Phenotype. Asexual reproduction occurs if the organism gains sufficient EnMass and involves duplication of the Genotype, with the possibility of copying errors. Sexual reproduction occurs if the organism, and a suitable nearby partner, between themselves, gains sufficient EnMass, and involves "random" selection of Genes from each of the partners.

Initial state with 128 "random" Plants. The top line indicates the total number of organisms alive at the moment, broken down into counts of Plants, Herbivores, and Carnivores of four different size classes of each type. The number of different GenoTypes alive at the moment is also given. At the left, bar graphs indicate the:  EX (Extinctions) PS (Shown logarithmically to highlight the expected Power Spectrum of extinctions); MC (Morphological Complexity); Info (Information level), and the Total Mass and Energy of organisms. The White "{ }" symbol indicates the current position of the "Sun" which continually sprinkles energy "randomly" onto nearby cells. The "Sun" moves at a moderate pace from left to right during the simulation indicating the passage of a "Day", and slowly from near the top to near the bottom indicating passage of a "Year".

After 11,926 cycles, Evolution and Natural Selection has had an impact. Only 56 organisms are alive, compared to the 128 we started with. However the organisms that are still alive have passed some tests of viability and are, on average, better "fit" to their Environment. At this point, the original 47 different GenoTypes have been reduced to only 20, and 1 of them is a Herbivore. 2 have been Born Sexually and 154 Born Asexually. Meanwhile, 0 have passed away due to being Eaten, 2 have Starved, 227 have Aged, 0 have  been Killed, and 1 has had a fatal Accident.

 

After 19,604,274 cycles, Evolution and Natural Selection continue to do their jobs. The Total number of live organisms has increased to 131, and some 33 of them are now Herbivores. Note the Power Spectrum of Extinctions (EX on leftmost bar graph) which is logarithmic, so equal sized increments indicate a logarithmic Power Spectrum.

Graph of original organisms.  Note most of the 64 types of codons have nearly equal representations. This is expected prior to Evolution and Natural Selection having their effect. 

Graph of organisms after 2.5 million cycles. Note that Evolution and Natural Selection has changed the prevalence of certain codons. Average Morphological Complexity (length of Phenotype) of living organisms has increased from the original 3 to 26.  Component Diversity (kinds of living organisms) has decreased from 0.227 to 0.061.

Graph from original situation to 19.6 Million cycles, with a logarithmic time axis. Three measurements shown are: In Light Blue: Extinctions. In Red: Information Content which is Component Diversity multiplied by Morphological Complexity. In Yellow: Life which is Energy multiplied by Mass). Note general increase in Life (Yellow) and Information (Red), with dips during Extinctions. Note that Extinctions (Light Blue) show many small drops, a moderate number of larger drops, and a small number of major drops. This behavior was not programmed into this computer simulation, but was expected based on the behavior of actual biological Life on Earth.

Graph of Life in Yellow.  Life is Live Energy (dashed Yellow) multiplied by Live Mass (White). Note general increase in each, with dips during Extinctions. 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Miscellaneous stuff:

What does the Agnostic, Dyslexic, Insomniac do all night?

Answer: She tosses and turns all night, wondering whether or not there is a DOG!

I knew a dyslexic woman who mixed up her bra and sox. It turned out OK - her feet didn't sag but she could touch her toes without bending over.

When you get old, everything gets "bass-ackwards" - I lost my sense of smell due to Parkinson's Disease, so now, my nose runs and my feet smell.

HOW THE HEBREWS GOT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

NOTE: I heard this humorous account from a friend who is more religious than I am, but I cannot vouch for any relationship it may have with the truth.

It was around 1300 BC when God sent the Angel of Justice to check on the status of life on Earth. The report was not good. The people on Earth were behaving horribly, killing each other, stealing, lying, and all other kinds of evil behavior.

The Angel of Justice recommended that God destroy the Earth and start over.

The Angel of Mercy intervened and suggested that God should make up some rules -- call them commandments -- that might help people on Earth behave better. God made up a long list, gave them to the Angel of Mercy, and asked her to convey them to the people of Earth.

She looked around the Earth for the largest and most influential society, which, at the time, was China, and went to the Emperor to offer him the commandments. He asked for an example and she replied "Thou shall not kill."

"Not kill?" he replied, "We do that all the time. Take your commandments and go away!"

So, the Angel of Mercy went to the Greeks, and offered the commandments. The King asked for an example and she replied, "Thou shall have no other God but me."

"Only one God? he replied, "We have dozens of Gods, hundreds. We don't want your commandments!"

The Angel of Mercy went to the Persians, the Egyptians, the Incas, and all other large societies, with the same result. Each time the person in charge asked for an example, rejected it, and sent the Angel away.

The Angel of Mercy reported the results to God. On the basis of her report, the Angel of Justice restated his original suggestion, that God immediately destroy life on Earth and start over again. "Justice shall be done!" he shouted, glaring at the Angel  of Mercy.

At that moment, the Angel of Mercy caught a glimpse of a rag-tag bunch of people struggling across the Sinai Desert. She begged God to give her one more chance to convey the commandments to the people of Earth. Over the objections of the Angel of Justice, God agreed, adding, "This is your last chance!"

The Angel of Mercy approached one of the people struggling across the desert and asked, "Who are you people?"

"We are the Hebrews," replied the man, "We were slaves in Egypt and we escaped and have been schlepping across the desert for years and years. Let me tell you, slavery in Egypt was no picnic, but, at least we had hovels to live in and a bit of food to eat and water to drink. Here we have nothing!"

"Do you have a leader?" asked the Angel.

"A leader?", he replied. "Moses is his name. Some leader he is, dragging us through the desert for years and years with no goal in sight. And, he won't even stop and ask for directions! See that tall guy over there? That's Moses, our leader."

The Angel approached and asked, "Are you Moses, the leader of these Hebrews?"

"Yeah," Moses replied, "What can I do for you?"

"I've got the commandments for you, will you take them?"

Moses looked her with a skeptical frown. "How much do they cost?" he asked.

"They're free", she replied.

"OK," said Moses, "Fine! I'll take Ten."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sloan_Wilson
Wilson and his co-author E. O. Wilson have become well known^{[citation needed]} for the quote, "Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary". This quotation appeared in their paper, "Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of Sociobiology".
Wilson is a blogger for the ScienceBlogs,^[4] where he extensively discusses and defends both the theory of evolution and his multilevel selection model.  

THE EVOLUTION INSTITUTE
https://evolution-institute.org/profile/david-sloan-wilson/

https://evolution-institute.org/what-brett-weinstein-gets-wrong-about-group-selection/
Key to group-selection is that, while free riders within a group have enhanced individual fitness, groups with free riders have reduced between-group fitness versus groups without free riders. Therefore, in between-group competition, groups with fewer free riders expand and gain resources by defeating groups with free riders. Thus, when more altruistic groups expand faster, the absolute population of altruistic individuals increases. Gives example of Jewish offshoot (Christianity) that opened up membership to Gentiles, as well as a Heavenly afterlife, and thus expanded more rapidly than its source Judaism. (Other examples: Beavers in ponds, where more altruistic beaver groups take over ponds of less altruistic beaver groups. Chimps who are aggressive to other chimp bands, while suffering in-group reduced fitness, never-the-less, by increasing between-group fitness of their band, take over territory of their less altruistic neighbors.)


https://evolution-institute.org/master-class-a-conversation-with-jonathan-birch-about-the-equivalence-of-theories-of-social-evolution/
Pro-social individuals (i.e., altruistic) vs self-oriented individuals (i.e., non-altruistic)