Is evolution a universal constant?

So... how many of you believe in evolution and what is it?

ev·o·lu·tion
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

is this a law that only applies to living organisms? or does this apply broadly as a universal constant?

Urban Astronomer

The two fundamental assumptions about modern cosmology (the study of the origins of the universe) and astrophysics are homogeneity and universality. The first means that matter is evenly spread out through the universe (if you average out over large enough scales), while the second means that the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe.

does that mean that the laws of physics are evolving?

I know this is a short thread but I think you get the idea.

a reply to: toysforadults

The interesting thing about evolution is that it omits any record of time and technological advancement within the species to define it.

Do you believe evolution can be expedited by technology?

a reply to: JinMI

hmmmm

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: JinMI

hmmmm

The exact reaction I would expect.

a reply to: JinMI

is change evolution?

is technology evolution?

a reply to: toysforadults

is change evolution?

Not necessarily.

is technology evolution?

Absolutely.

IMO of course. Hindsight being 20/20 I could not place any accuracy on it.

a reply to: JinMI

ok... we need a deeper definition of what evolution actually is/ means.

obviously if it's a law of the universe it must exist on cosmic scales... so what is it?

a reply to: toysforadults

I certainly am not an authority on a cosmic scale. So we can venture into subjective means that we as humans can relate.

Have we evolved from say caves and fire? Sure.

Have we evolved from seeing/doing (industrial revolution)? Absolutely

Have we evolved from seeing/doing to ascribing technology to do our bidding? (Somewhat, but not entirely)

a reply to: toysforadults

Things change over time.

So?

a reply to: JinMI

ok, well in order for the process of evolution to play out on a micro cosmic scale it must exist within a macro cosmic scale

as above to so below, so how do we validate this in let's say..... a star cluster

a reply to: toysforadults

Your expanding your ideal far past my intellectual capacity.

Suffice to say that I'm of the opinion that technology speeds up evolution in humans. Maybe not biological (I'm not above being proven wrong) however certainly in our everyday tasks and solutions.

a reply to: JinMI

ok, here's what I'm getting at

if you have an idea that's creatively unique you have to check that idea against a process. if we look at past philosophers and idealist we can see the idea of as above so below appearing in various forms unique to the individual

as above so below

so, if you can discover something you have to be able to apply that discovery to multiple cosmic scale in order to find it valid

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: toysforadults

The interesting thing about evolution is that it omits any record of time and technological advancement within the species to define it.

Do you believe evolution can be expedited by technology?

I believe that current concepts of evolution are limited by a poor understanding of what is possible.

Consciousness will lead to changes that extend far beyond the limited understandings of what has been in the past.

Over time, the futures which are likely will diverge vastly from what has been. Technological control over environment means that natural selection cannot work any more. Pure intellect and its technological expression will overreach all.

a reply to: toysforadults

Let's leave the personality behind as it speaks to authority.

Is the idea valid? Is the idea progressive? Does the idea have factual basis?

The final question; is it unique?

There is the saying that nothing is new under the sun. I leave that for plebes that can't imagine. I consider myself one of those plebes, however I don't think that because of that the I'm the rule, and look for possible exceptions.

Even if the above mentioned statement is true, that doesn't proclaim that multiple processes can't exist.

TLDR: redundancy can be a boon.

a reply to: chr0naut

isn't technology a natural evolution though?

it's almost like we do it out of instinct

a reply to: chr0naut

I don't disagree. History shows that the abstract thinker is the brightest and most profitable.

Placing arbitrary limits on thought is akin to placing a fools bet.

This speaks to the theory that we as humans have no clue on what the human brain can do.

As an aside, I hope this thread gets much reception as it deserves a proper discussion.

It is the discussion of being.

a reply to: JinMI

hmmm

well, if I take my position that the universe is a mental construct of the god mind than there's nothing that can exist that hasn't been thought of

a reply to: toysforadults

Then what's the point of thinking for yourself?

Either you've covered ground previously tread or being guided in the intended direction.

I've no basis to refute your claim other than a soul feeling.

So who's the greater fool?

a reply to: JinMI

well... the process of self discovery is more about becoming aware than it is about creating

this is a paradox because by becoming aware you also create