|Register||Search||Today's Posts||Mark Forums Read|
|Botany Forum Botany Forum|
Breakthrough in Cosmology
Breakthrough in Cosmology - Botany Forum
Breakthrough in Cosmology - Botany Forum
| ||LinkBack||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
Breakthrough in Cosmology
As you may know in light of the big bang paradigm's explanatory impotence
many physicists claim, including Leonard Susskind of Stanford University and
his colleagues, that the contemporary theoretical view of the Universe is so
unlikely that it must be logically flowed, and apparently we are missing
something fundamental. Susskind's team posits that some "unknown agent
intervened in the evolution [of the Universe] for reasons of its own" [see
[Only registered users see links. ].
You may be interested to know that the postulate that a perpetual Cosmic
Genome is the genotype of the phenotype Universe is in excellent agreement
with the accurate data we have. Remarkably, it also agrees with Maori
cosmology: "In the Maori world, whakapapa or lineage connects us all to
every aspect of the universe from the beginning of time -- to the very first
seed that created the universe. ... For it is the seed of life from which
all things grow and, through which all things are connected. It is the seed
that holds the potential of the universe" [see [Only registered users see links. ]
Thus the fundamental "unknown agent" we are missing appears to be a Cosmic
Genome, which Genome generated the Universe for the production of human life
in its own image, similarly as a seed generates a tree for the production of
seeds in its own image. This Seed Cosmology tells us that the initial cause
of the Universe is a Cosmic Genome, and also the source of the basic forces
and laws of nature. Because structure formation is the basic quality of
life, the Cosmic Genome explains the cosmic system's formation, development
and energetic expansion, as well as the common origin of all forms of life
from that Cosmic Common Ancestor.
As you may see there is one crucial assumption in this Seed Cosmology: it
presupposes that the highest and most complex form of life that exists
constitutes the Initial Seed of the Universe. The purpose of the article
below is to point out that we have good empirical reasons to postulate that
this is the case.
Breakthrough in Cosmology
By Kazmer Ujvarosy
Whereas it is amusing to watch scientists dealing with a living Universe
which they are dead sure is dead, at the same time it is annoying, and I
think it is about time to bring that message home.
Modern cosmology is still not a proper science because its mathematical
models have no predictive power. The aim of quantum cosmogenesis is to make
it predictive by finding a simple and convincing model that specifies
exactly the initial state of the Universe, and explains the generation of
the entire Universe in terms of that initial state. In essence the task is
to link the present cosmic structure or macrocosm to its microcosmic origin,
and to make predictions based on the knowledge of that microcosmic origin.
According to Stephen Hawking [see
[Only registered users see links. ] the singularity theorems show
that our Universe had a quantum origin, or popped into existence in a
quantum blip out of nothing, and therefore we need a theory of quantum
gravity to describe the process of creation, and to make testable
predictions. Also he finds the Anthropic Principle helpful in finding a
model that represents our Universe.
I shall argue that the present Universe, which indubitably yields life forms
of great complexity, is reducible not to an inanimate initial singularity or
quantum blip, but rather to a single and most complex Initial Cosmic Genome.
If this Seed Theory of Creation is correct-i.e. that an Initial Cosmic
Genome generated our Universe for the purpose of self-reproduction,
similarly as a seed generates a tree for the production of seeds in its own
image-, then we don't need a theory of quantum gravity to describe the
process of creation, because the Universe does not have a quantum origin,
but a seed origin. Thus there is no need to treat the Universe as though it
were a quantum particle. Rather, we must treat it as a Cosmic Tree of Life
that unfolds from an Initial Cosmic Seed. We may consider the Initial Cosmic
Seed uncreated and immortal, because the Universe has no power to act upon
the Initial Seed of its own origin, just as a tree has no power to act upon
the initial seed of its own origin.
The Tree Model
Earlier findings that our Universe had a beginning are still being digested
by cosmology's mathematical models. If the Universe did not always exist,
where did it come from? What gave birth to the Universe? Birth or coming
into being is a sign of life. In our experience it implies invariably
unfoldment from a source of life. Animals unfold from reproductive cells,
and plants unfold from seeds. For some reason, however, the world's
celebrated cosmologists and theoreticians failed to give life a chance to
play any role in their models of the Universe. Their search for a plausible
explanation yielded a paradigm that attempts to explain the birth, structure
formation, and expansion, of our Universe in terms of a cataclysmic
explosion. The cause of that explosion, however, remains an open question.
In any case the big bang paradigm is still being celebrated all over the
world as the best model to represent our Universe.
It may be that only a fraction of the Universe is clearly living,
nevertheless it does not necessarily follow that an explosion caused the
cosmic system's birth, structure formation, and expansion. We know that more
than 97 percent of the oldest giant Sequoia's mass is considered to be
non-living, and we know that no one living today could have observed the
birth of that tree, yet no sensible person would speculate that an explosion
or quantum fluctuation caused its generation, and that purposeless
non-living forces drive that giant's structure formation and expansion.
Also, when we observe that our giant Sequoia develops leaves, flowers and
seeds, we do not speculate that the tree's dead materials managed to
generate primitive life forms; we do not speculate that those primitive
cells evolved into the complexity of leaves, the leaves into the complexity
of flowers, and the flowers into the complexity of seeds, over long periods
of time as a result of random mutations, recombination, and natural
selection. We are not so deluded because we know that natural systems
resemble each other in fundamental ways, and in our experience life is the
driving force behind the birth, formation, and growth, of any natural system
whose development we can follow from birth.
Even if we are faced with a giant Sequoia, we know that a single seed akin
to its tiny winged seeds generated that giant for the purpose of
self-reproduction. A child who has never seen a seed unfold into a tree may
be fooled into believing that the tree's structure emerged from the dirt as
a result of an explosion, and gravity acting on that explosion. That child
may even believe in the evolution of leaves from branches, and in the
evolution of seeds from leaves. But those of us who can follow a tree's
development from seed to seeds know beyond any reasonable doubt that lesser
complexity generating greater complexity, and evolution from simplicity to
complexity, are illusions. We know that the reality behind those illusions
is the tree system's initial seed. The initial seed's field of life energy
drives and controls that structure's development and life. It constitutes
that structure's constant or parameters. For the various components of that
structure the initial seed is also the common ancestor. The tree's
quintessence or life energy has its source in the initial seed, and is
reconstituted in the seeds generated. We may say that the seed is the Alpha
and the Omega, the input and the output, or the beginning and the end, of
the tree system.
Because seeds have both particle and field properties, when the initial seed
acts on non-life to generate a structure for the purpose of
self-reproduction, it passes from a potential or particle state into a state
of expression or field of life energy. The field of life energy remains
hidden or "dark" in the background, but we may infer its existence in its
manifestation as a complex structure or system. The initial seed's existence
is also inferable from the existence of its reproductions. To illustrate,
the initial seed of a giant Sequoia is manifest in the tree's structure, and
also in the seeds which that structure yields. Thus the existence of a giant
Sequoia implies the existence of an initial Sequoia seed, and the existence
of the millions of tiny winged Sequoia seeds also implies the existence of
an initial Sequoia seed.
The point I intend to make is that if we find that a natural system came
into being, and displays structure formation and expansion, then from nature
's hard, solid facts we may infer that the system has life, because those
signs are the manifestations of life. If it could be demonstrated that no
initial life played an intimate role in the birth of this life-giving cosmic
structure, and in its formation and expansion, then life's generation by
non-life would constitute the solitary exception to the principle of
biogenesis. However, as Peter T. Mora noted, "How life originated, I am
afraid that, since Pasteur, this question is not within the scientific
domain" [see "Urge and Molecular Biology," by Peter T. Mora; Nature, July
The Principle of Biogenesis
In the Oxford Dictionary of Biology [Oxford University Press, 2000] we find:
"biogenesis The principle that a living organism can only arise from other
living organisms similar to itself (i.e. that like gives rise to like) and
can never originate from nonliving material." In the Science and Technology
Encyclopedia [University of Chicago Press, 1999] on the same subject we
read: "Biological principle maintaining that all living organisms derive
from parent(s) generally similar to themselves. This long-held principle was
originally established in opposition to the idea of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION
of life. On the whole, it still holds good, despite variations in
individuals caused by mutations, hybridization, and other genetic effects."
Regarding this subject we should be aware of the fact that probably no
biological generalization is more strongly supported by thoroughly tested
evidences than the principle of biogenesis. And because the scientific
evidence is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that life can never originate
from non-life, only from life akin to itself, it is an entirely reasonable
scientific conclusion that there was never a time when life did not exist,
and human life could come only from human life akin to itself.
Although the question of what separates the living from the non-living still
gives biologists restless nights, and although the principle of biogenesis
remains unfalsified, cosmologists do not seem to be concerned. They sidestep
those issues by postulating a non-living source for our life-giving
What makes them do so? Incompetence and self-delusion seem to be the most
plausible reasons. Non-life's followers admit that abiogenesis cannot occur
now, but argue that it played an essential role in the origin of life when
the conditions favored abiogenesis billions of years ago. As you may have
guessed the evidence for that postulate is a big fat zero. Based on the same
non-evidence we can argue that at this time the conditions are not right for
making the Sun stand still, but at one time the conditions favored the
performance of that miracle. So it is beyond any doubt that the
origin-of-life superstition is unconnected to any empirically verifiable
reality. It is simply delusion, conjured up by minds closed to the supremacy
Even if we assume for the sake of irrationality that non-life managed to
generate life-i.e. that an inferior cause yielded a superior effect-,
logically only non-life is qualified to demonstrate the production of life
from non-life. No form of life may play a role in that experiment because
the claim is that non-life on its own performed that most miraculous act.
Thus the laughably foolish claim is that the lesser is superior to the more
complex because the more complex is the product of the lesser.
Moreover, if the credit goes to non-life for the creation of life, then
logically only non-life is qualified to "know" what it took to perform that
miracle of all miracles. Human involvement in any origin-of-life experiment
can only prove what we all know, that life can generate life, but the absurd
contention is that actually non-life generated life. So how can any sane
person give credit to non-life for the production of any form of primitive
life in the lab when those experiments are performed by humans? Humans
decide what kind of materials they want to use, what kind of equipment, what
kind of processes, and so on. Where is any choice or decision made by
non-life? Is there need to make it more evident that any origin-of-life
claim is absurd on theoretical and practical grounds, and flies valiantly in
the face of all scientific common sense?
The existence of this origin-of-life superstition in science is embarrassing
indeed, to say the least. There is no way to test it by anything living, yet
it claims to be scientific. It can't be observed by anything living, yet its
proponents rashly promote it as the best scientific explanation for the
existence of life. Do we still have rational scientists who wish to know
where the proof is for life's origin from non-life?
Another clue for the existence of this origin-of-life superstition in the
scientific community is given by George Wald, a former Harvard biochemist
and winner of the Nobel Prize. In his "Innovation and Biology" article we
find: "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is
spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural
creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation,
that life arose from non-living matter, was scientifically disproved 120
years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible
conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not
accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God.
Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically
impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution" [see "Innovation
and Biology," by George Wald; Scientific American, September 1958].
As I already indicated, there is a third possibility: from the principle of
biogenesis, and from the observation of natural systems, we may infer that
human life is the Creator of the Universe. Human life needs no cause because
it constitutes the Initial Cosmic Genome, Cosmological Constant or Common
Ancestor, of our Universe. Human life exists, and if human life generated
the Universe for the purpose of self-reproduction, then human life is
immortal because the Universe, being the effect, has no power to act upon
the cause of its own origin, similarly as a tree has no power to act upon
the seed of its own origin. Moreover human life appears to be immortal in
the sense that no experiment has proven otherwise.
Any person who can invent a plausible, empirically supported theory of
mechanism for the spontaneous generation of life may collect the $1,350,000
Origin-of-Life Prize, and most definitely a Nobel Prize. However these
rewards are still up for grabs because no one was able to invent such a
theory of mechanism, and obviously never will, because non-life has nothing
to do with the generation of life. So far as our clear and certain knowledge
goes, life comes only from life, and the formation of structures is the
basic quality of life, not that of non-life. This implies that anything with
a structure is the product of life, and not that of non-life.
The Principle of Causality
Modern cosmology's assumption that non-life caused the birth, formation, and
expansion, of our Universe, also flies straight in the face of the principle
The principle of causality stipulates that cause and effect are
proportionate, because the effect cannot be greater than the cause which is
required to produce that effect. In other words a cause cannot produce
anything greater than itself. Otherwise the extra part of the effect would
be without a cause, and that is contrary to reason. It may be entertaining
to watch how a magician conjures out of thin air all kinds of things-or a
cosmologist, as a matter of fact-, but in reality no one has yet been able
to get something from nothing.
A salt crystal, for example, can break down to sodium (Na) and chlorine
(Cl), and even those ingredients can break down to smaller parts, but if
anyone argues that a salt crystal can evolve into something more complex on
its own, then we are justified in smelling a causality violation. So in
light of this solid scientific foundation it becomes clear that we are
violating the principle of causality if we argue that non-life generated
life, or that primitive life evolved into the complexity and diversity of
life on its own strength.
Because it is self-evident that the superior can contain the inferior, but
the reverse is impossible, any model that fails to derive human life from a
source which is equal or superior to human life is unacceptable. Those who
credit the creation of human life to the Universe, rather than the creation
of the Universe to human life, are like that proverbial maker of an idol who
supposed that the idol which he had made actually made him.
Let us now consider another finding that made modern cosmology's chronic
input deficiency even more manifest.
Contemporary cosmology just can't get over the discovery that our Universe
appears to be biocentric or bio-friendly, i.e. that the cosmological
parameters are ingeniously fine-tuned for the production of life. In our
experience the parameters or determining characteristics of plant and animal
systems are delicately fine-tuned for the production of reproductive cells
because those systems are reproductive cells unfolded. We find, in other
words, that the parameters of a hen are fine-tuned for the production of
eggs because an egg generated that system for the purpose of
self-reproduction. Also we find that the parameters of an apple tree are
fine-tuned for the production of apples because an apple seed generated that
system for the purpose of self-reproduction. So when we find that the
parameters of our Universe are fine-tuned for the production of life, then
the most plausible explanation seems to be that it is so because an Initial
Cosmic Genome generated the cosmic system for the purpose of
Needless to say, none of the celebrities of science came even near to this
conclusion. Instead they appeal to the idea of a multiverse or many-worlds
interpretation, and fancies of that nature, in an effort to explain away the
bio-centrality of our Universe. However the facts remain, and the weird
evidenceless speculations will have to go, because they hamper the progress
of science in many ways.
What really causes modern cosmology great agony is the recent discovery that
the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, rather than decelerating.
Practically all involved seem to be clueless what makes the cosmic structure
's expansion more energetic. In our experience growth or expansion,
increases in level of complexity, and the potential to become more
energetic, are the basic qualities of living systems. So the findings that
the cosmic structure's level of complexity increases and becomes more
energetic imply that our Universe is an open system. But open to what? The
only reasonable answer is, I'm absolutely confident, that our Universe is
open to a Cosmic Genome's field of life energy.
Because the Cosmos is the Cosmic Genome's effect, and lives within the
Cosmic Genome's field of life energy (you may call it "cosmological
constant," "quantum vacuum," "dark energy," or "quintessence"), the Cosmos
has no power to act upon the very cause of its own origin, similarly as a
tree has no power to act upon the seed of its own origin. This implies the
Cosmic Genome's immortality, and that the Cosmic Genome is the Common
Ancestor of all things generated in the Universe.
The Living Cosmology
The available data indicate that instead of non-life, the most complex form
of life that exists is the Cosmic Seed or Common Ancestor of our Universe.
Because we know human life to be the most complex form of life, the
tentative Cosmic Seed of the Universe is human life, pending the discovery
of an even more complex form of life. Thus the Unified Theory that an
initial Cosmic Genome, akin to human genome, generated the Universe for the
purpose of self-reproduction appears to provide the best explanation for the
data we have.
It may be argued that human life is not the highest form of life in the
Universe, but it does not tally with the obvious facts we have. There is
absolutely no demonstrable evidence in favor of the belief that a life form,
as superior to us as we are to the animals, exists. But if anyone insists
that human life is not the highest form of life in existence, where is the
evidence that a life form superior to human life exists, or can come into
existence? Those who argue in favor of such a superhuman life have the
burden to deliver the demonstrable evidence. So the proposal that human life
constitutes the cosmic system's provisional output remains valid. Only the
discovery of a superhuman output can falsify that theory, or evidence that a
cause can generate an effect greater than is found in the cause.
From the inference that human life constitutes the provisional Cosmic Output
necessarily follows that human life is also the provisional Cosmic Input,
pending the discovery of an even greater complexity.
Because this Living Cosmology rests on the input/output nature of human
life, let's make it more certain that human life is indeed the cosmic
We know from systems science that the self-regulation of a system depends on
negative information-feedback on part of the output. The feedback is
compared to the input value. If the deviation between the input value and
the actual output is significant to generate error signals, the error
signals cause the system to reduce the errors or deviations closer to zero.
Now the question is: Are human beings providing information feedback to the
cosmic system's Initial Seed? If they provide information feedback, in that
case we have convincing evidence that indeed human life constitutes the
output of our Universe.
I propose that what we call prayer is actually information feedback to the
cosmic system's Initial Seed. By providing information-feedback to the
cosmic system's Initial Seed we transform the universe from an open-loop
system into a closed-loop or self-correcting system.
Thus from the systems point of view information feedback in the form of
prayer is most desirable, because that feedback is not automatic. The
universe does not measure error through the automatic feedback of its own
human output, but assumes that its human output is without deviation, i.e.
that the human beings produced are the Initial Seed's exact reproductions.
So it is the human output's responsibility to make known to the cosmic
system's Initial Seed by means of information-feedback what defects or
deviations we have relative to the input's values. That information feedback
in the form of prayer enables the Initial Seed to evaluate the cosmic system
's operation and to correct the detected errors in the cosmic system's
But how can the human output know about the Initial Cosmic Seed's values?
Revelation is the answer. The Initial Cosmic Seed, being human life akin to
our life, communicates it to its children. By having those high standards in
view, and by striving to live up to those high standards, we may achieve
immortality akin to the Initial Seed's immortality.
In light of this Living Cosmology now it seems clear that we have to stand
the scientific community's bottom-up world view on its head. Progression
from bottom-up is a delusion, and it violates the most basic principles of
science. It seeks to derive from the lesser what the lesser does not
have-greater complexity. We have seen enough of the hat tricks many of our
scientists perform. Now it is time to face reality: only the highest form of
life or complexity that exists can yield lesser forms of life or complexity
without violating the most basic principles of science. The reverse process
is a delusion.
In contradiction with evolution's tree of life that derives the diversity
and complexity of life from a simple common ancestor, the Seed Theory of
Creation posits that an initial and most complex Cosmic Genome generated the
Universe for the purpose of self-reproduction, similarly as a seed generates
a tree for the purpose of self-reproduction.
This natural model of the Universe is solidly based on a tree system, and on
the observation of that system. It allows us to infer that if an oak tree,
for example, yields acorns, then we can be confident beyond any reasonable
doubt that an initial acorn generated that tree for the purpose of
self-reproduction. Based on this observation it is safe to infer that if our
Universe yields output in the form of human beings, then evidently an
Initial Seed of human life generated the cosmic system for the purpose of
Thus in light of this Living Cosmology we may see that modern cosmology's
standard big bang model is worthless, unless we throw it to the flames to
keep us warm. On the other hand the Living Cosmology is based solidly on the
existence of human life, and on the observation of natural systems. In the
same light we may see that creation exists in nature, independently of the
Bible and other sacred scriptures.
We see creation taking place in nature all the time: eggs generate birds for
the purpose of self-reproduction; seeds generate plants for the purpose of
self-reproduction; and finally, the Cosmic Seed generates a cosmic system
for the purpose of self-reproduction. So this Living Cosmology is
scientifically sound because it is extrapolated from the observation of
natural systems. Moreover, in contrast with the speculations that derive the
Universe from non-life, it is in perfect harmony with the principles of
causality and biogenesis.
In a nutshell, this Seed Theory of Creation is a unifying cosmological model
that provides a solid foundation on which the superstructure of a new world
order can be erected.
In its light we can provide highly plausible explanations for the greatest
mysteries of the Universe. Now we know that human life exists because it is
immortal, being the Initial Seed or Cosmological Constant of the Universe.
Also we know that the Universe exists because the Initial Seed generated the
cosmic system by a series of progressive steps for the purpose of
self-reproduction. The Cosmic Seed's field of life energy is constant, but
the cosmic structure that develops within that halo of life field
The revelations we have indicate that the purpose of our Cosmic Common
Ancestor is to provide the best possible conditions for human beings, so
that they can bring themselves closer to His own perfection.
Based on cosmology's Tree of Life we may infer that the cycle of life's
manifestation begins with a most complex and Perfect Seed, and ends in a
most complex and Perfect Seed. Because the Generative Seed of the Universe
is perpetual, the Universe is subject to an infinite number of cycles.
Creation follows dissolution endlessly. In other words the Common Ancestor,
being the Initial Seed of our Universe, not only projects the Universe out
of His seed center, but also withdraws the Universe into His seed center.
When at the end of a life-cycle the Universe is dissolved, its life
principle or quintessence returns from its field state into its initial seed
state, i.e. to a phase of potentiality. It stays in that dormant state until
it feels again an inner urge or desire to produce offspring in its own
This paradigm-shattering Living Cosmology implies that at the heart of the
Universe is neither a big bang, nor evolution from simplicity to complexity,
but perfect and all-embracing life and love in the form of an Immortal Seed
of human life.
The present scientific consensus may weight heavily against such a
conclusion. However rational reasoning from the solid facts makes it evident
that human life's immortality is indeed the quintessence of cosmology.
Because human life is Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, no
Universe can exist in the absence of human life.
In one of his works Alfred North Whitehead described physics as the study of
smaller organisms and biology as the study of larger organisms. Now we may
add to these disciplines cosmology, and describe it as the study of the
Let me close with these words of wisdom:
"If you possess true knowledge, O Soul, you will understand that you are
akin to your Creator."
--Hermes, the God of Wisdom
|breakthrough , cosmology|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Are cyclic theory of cosmology gaining more support?||Mr stupid questions||Physics Forum||1||06-23-2009 02:18 PM|
|THE breakthrough of 2006?||Frank||Science News and Views||6||02-02-2007 02:35 AM|
|New Free Energy Research Breakthrough||Paul Lowrance||Physics Forum||54||04-01-2005 09:56 PM|
|Breakthrough In Nanoimprinting Yields Simple Way To Make Microscopic Electronics||Bubba Do Wah Ditty||Physics Forum||0||07-23-2004 02:14 PM|
|Breakthrough in Cosmology||Kazmer Ujvarosy||Forum Biologie||0||05-21-2004 06:32 AM|