What are some philsophical or cosmological frameworks that regard our universe as a living entity?

December 7, 2007 10:54 AM

Is there an existing philosophical or cosmological model that regards the universe as a living thing with the observed patterns and "laws" of the universe being a reflection of an inherent model analogous to the genetic models of living things as we know them? My own uneducated philosophical meanderings have led me to this idea and I am wondering about developed theories or philosophies that follow similar lines.

First of all, think of living things as self-contained models of the universe that include the reproduction of that model. For us, our inherent model is contained in our genes, and that model predicts an environment (where the environment includes the body of the living thing) that will result in reproduction of that model, which will in turn result in reproduction of that model, and so on. The accuracy of those predictions, and the degree to which the inherent model reflects the events that occur over the course of the organisms life, dictates success as a living thing.

Now imagine that the universe is itself a living organism and we are part of its "body". Features of this universe are dictated by a universal model that itself has developed as a result of a natural selection of universes. Just as we develop conscious models, through science, that parallel the models inherent in our genes (as we figure out what genes do, and sometimes why), so might we develop conscious models that parallel the inherent models that underly a universe that has inherited those models from "universal ancestors".

I have read a bit about a "Darwinian cosmology" with black holes as the sort of universal gametes, and life and consciousness as a side effect. What I am wondering about is if others have developed the idea that consciousness, and our drive to understand and build a model of our universe is itself the mechanism for reproducing the universe. Now I know this is where it starts to sound all new agey and anthropocentric, but the idea here is that an understanding of the underlying model of our universe and the technology that comes with that may eventually result in the birth of the next generation of our universe. So the underlying model of our own universe itself predicts consciousness as the eventual means of reproduction of the universe, in the same way that our genes predict gametes and all of our biological apparatus as the eventual way to reproduce themselves.

I realize that the predictions that come out of this idea are hardly testable at the moment, since it would require some way to "observe" other universes and maybe to eventually witness the birth of a new universe. I also realize that this still leaves the existence of a still underlying environment with its patterns and problems that are themselves modeled by the universal model. And so on, and so on. Again, I am just curious if any Mefites know about philosophies or cosmologies that may have explored a similar idea.

posted by beegull to religion & philosophy (12 comments total)

Baruch Spinoza is a modern philosopher that makes claims at least somewhat along these lines. In short, he argues that everything in part of one universal Substance (which he calls somewhat interchangeably God and nature), of which we and all the other things in the world are "modes" or "affectations" of that substance. I don't think he shares any of your notions of natural selection of universes and such, but he might be a starting point for a theory along your lines.
posted by Rallon at 11:03 AM on December 7, 2007

There's the Gaia hypothesis.
posted by box at 11:08 AM on December 7, 2007

Wow, thanks box. That article on the Gaia hypothesis included a link to an article on James N. Gardner and his "Selfish Biocosm Hypothesis", which is pretty much exactly the idea I was exploring.
posted by beegull at 11:28 AM on December 7, 2007

Read more about Schelling and his Naturphilosophie
posted by gregb1007 at 11:33 AM on December 7, 2007

I also echo the advice about Schelling.

As far as contemporary thinkers go, Rupert Sheldrake is a heretical scientist, also known as a 'crackpot' to the skeptically-minded. This is from his website.

organicism: A form of holism according to which the world consists of organisms (or holons or morphic units, q.v.) at all levels of complexity. Organisms are wholes made up of parts, which are themselves organisms, and so on; they are organized in nested hierarchies. The parts of organisms can be understood only in relation to their activities and functions in the ongoing whole. Organisms in this sense include atoms, molecules, crystals, cells, tissues, organs, plants and animals, societies, cultures, ecosystems, planets, planetary systems, and galaxies. In this spirit, the entire cosmos can be regarded as an organism rather than a machine (cf. mechanistic theory).
posted by goethean at 12:33 PM on December 7, 2007

I don't think this is exactly what you are talking about, but some physicists are now talking more about understanding the basis behind the physical laws of the universe. Rather than just taking for granted they exist and are immutable, they are questioning WHY these particular set of physical laws exist. This can lead to multiverse thinking, but it can also lead to thinking like you express in your question.

There was a recent editorial in the New York Times that discussed this a little bit. It is Here. The article was by Paul Davies who is a phsyicist at Arizona State University and has recently authored a book on the topic titled: Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe is Just Right For Life.
posted by bove at 12:38 PM on December 7, 2007

So far the closest fit is Gardener's Biocosm idea, and I'm looking forward to seeing where he goes with it.

From a quick review of the suggestions so far the ideas of Schelling, Spinoza, and Davies, run very much parallel to what I've been mulling over, all in different ways. So thanks everyone for the great ideas!
posted by beegull at 1:02 PM on December 7, 2007

Now I know this is where it starts to sound all new agey and anthropocentric, but the idea here is that an understanding of the underlying model of our universe and the technology that comes with that may eventually result in the birth of the next generation of our universe. So the underlying model of our own universe itself predicts consciousness as the eventual means of reproduction of the universe, in the same way that our genes predict gametes and all of our biological apparatus as the eventual way to reproduce themselves.

Asimov's The Last Question is a classic take on this, if he counts as a philosopher (I think so!)
posted by vorfeed at 1:20 PM on December 7, 2007

Also, related to my comment above, here is an interesting sci-fi book on the subject called Calculating God.

The premise of the book is that an alien visits earth and asks to see our fossil record and our history of extinction events. They turn out to be identical to those of the alien's world. Much of the book is a discussion between the alien and an atheist scientist about why the physical laws of the universe are the way they are.
posted by bove at 2:56 PM on December 7, 2007

Maybe look into some of Ken Wilburs work not that he has the same view as yourself but examines a pretty broad swath of ideas.
posted by jade east at 4:16 PM on December 7, 2007

and maybe I could spell check before I post, "Ken Wilber" is the mans name.
posted by jade east at 4:18 PM on December 7, 2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah
posted by watercarrier at 4:18 PM on December 8, 2007