A Point of Correction — The Organismal Selection
I recently received one of the greatest feedback yet about my theory.
Note — To Get a full context of this article, it is best if you start by reading this one.
To reiterate Feynman and as I have always mentioned before, the first rule is never to fool yourself.
The second one is that you’re the easiest person to fool.
And the truth is, I fooled myself. However, thanks to the readership I have recently been getting, the amount of feedback I get is astounding and eye-opening.
Some of my stories have been getting massive readership. Whenever I get the chance to ping readers to articles vital to understanding my theory of evolution, I use it.
The point is to open up my foolish spots. I won’t call them blind spots since I stress there are areas where one becomes fooled by their ideas. One can be overly in love with their ideas to the point of overlooking its serious flaws.
Were it not for this keen reader, I would have continued drowning in my deep pool of foolishness.
This article is in honour of the response I got and to clarify my point in the theory.
This is my confession: Existence can misguide — it misguided me
I have often insisted that existence is an important aspect of the theory of Organismal Selection.
Before any organism becomes worthy of discussion or inclusion in the forces of evolution, it has to exist.
But existence can be misguiding. In this case, it introduced a serious flaw introduced by my choice of words.
Normally, I use the spectrum of existence between 0 and 1 to explain how and why organisms behave in the way that they do. Zero, on the extreme left of this spectrum, was to be the point of non-existence, and One, on the extreme right, was the point of non-existence after an organism has lived or existed.
It is easier to think of it as a number line with infinite points between 0 on the left and 1 on the right. So between 0 and 1 lies an infinite number of probabilities.
Here’s the example I want to use for you to also see the flaw.
If an organism has a probability of existence of ½, then 1- ½ accords it a probability of non-existence of ½. If it merges with another organism with the same probability, it would mean their probability of non-existence shoots from ½ to 1/4.
That is, the probability of the first and the second organism existing becomes a product of the two organisms that have just merged.
Here’s the simple math –
½ × ½ = ¼
While this is all innocent, it would mean that the merger takes the new organism closer to non-existence on one spectrum (0) and further from non-existence (1) on the other. The merger contradicts the intention of the organism which is to avoid annihilation and which, in this case, is equivalent to 1, the right extreme end of the spectrum of existence.
It seems my choice of words was wrong. The spectrum of existence means every merger takes it towards non-existence on the left side (0).
In reality, what I meant was totally different. For clarity, rather than use existence as a spectrum, I suggest a different alternative.
The annihilation spectrum
The goal of every organism is to avoid annihilation however and whenever they can.
Yes, they have to exist first but thereafter, they have to avoid annihilation.
Let’s bring back the two extremes — 0 and 1.
If the goal of every organism is to avoid annihilation, each one of them tries to avoid getting closer to 1. It would mean the extreme opposite, 0, is non-annihilation. I don’t think such a word exists but for clarity reasons, I will use it.
This I will call the annihilation spectrum.
Non-annihilation is formally equivalent to formation or existence. But we have already seen the errors with using existence as a word.
Once an organism has crossed the 0 threshold and existed, it can never get back to 0. It is a one-way valve that only lets organisms meet their end on the other extreme, at 1. The final pathway after life is death.
Now let’s consider how organisms behave. They try to delay their annihilation, which in this case is 1. The easiest way they can do this is by mergers.
Since we’re using the annihilation spectrum, the probability of annihilation becomes the words of choice once again.
Assume we have two organisms — X and Y. Each has a probability of annihilation of ½. When they merge, their probability of annihilation reduces using the same calculus of probability:
½ × ½ = ¼
This then effectively shows how mergers take organisms away from annihilation but closer to the other end of non-annihilation. In other words, it shows how organisms tend to avoid annihilation.
The effects of framing it as an annihilation spectrum
The other important reason why using the annihilation spectrum better aligns with my idea is what it shows from the probability.
Using the above example, a probability of annihilation of ¼ is smaller than ½. It also assumes an important bit which I clarified in the book — that is, mergers spontaneously generate new organisms.
The product of X and Y merging is a new organism — XY. Or YX. Or whatever you wish to call them. The probability moves from ½ to ¼, which is closer to non-annihilation. However, this newly found probability is for the constituent organisms, in this case, X and Y, but not for the emergent organism that forms after the two have merged.
Complete annihilation would now have to constitute the annihilation of XY, then of X and Y. It’s part of the reason why mergers can be successful.
Using our example, XY never existed before. It only did after X and Y merged. Thus, the merger created a new organism. It’s safe to say that after the merger, XY crossed the 0 threshold. Its only way out is through 1, through annihilation.
And if it is split up, its constituents emerge, not as new organisms since they already existed as individual entities, as X and Y, they have postponed their annihilation by forming the emergent organism XY after their merger.
What I’m trying to say is…
Sticking to the word annihilation avoids the confusion that existence can bring.
The annihilation spectrum is more consistent with the probability logic I use to defend the theory of Organismal Selection.
From 0 — non-annihilation to 1, annihilation exists all forms of organisms we can think of. Through mergers, it shows how one organism emerges spontaneously after the merger has happened — and the delayed annihilation of the constituent organisms of the merger using the same calculus of probability.
I would also like to thank the excellent feedback I got from endvvell. I hope the idea is much better understood and more consistent.
Furthermore, I hope to continue getting more reviews the same.
