Beyond Biology: Exploration to the General Evolution Theory
Before the birth of life, there was no mechanism for self-replication as is typical in living organisms. While some argue that the process by which incredibly complex life forms emerged from non-living matter is a result of mere momentary chance, it’s more rational to believe that there was a gradual change, or in other words, an evolutionary process.
Self-replication is not essential for evolution. Starting from the perspective that it’s just one of the highly efficient mechanisms for evolution, one realizes that there are ways things can proliferate without self-replication.
A particular entity can increase or boost the mechanism that produces it, thereby intensifying its proliferation. In other words, it’s about feedback.
In this article, we will theoretically consider the evolution of things, not limited to living organisms, from the perspective of feedback and proliferation.
■ Proliferation of New Things
Due to natural random combinations, human unconscious and intentional design, inventions, and creations, things change.
If the changed things can receive positive feedback holistically through interactions with the existing set of things, they can survive. If they can survive, they are reproduced, duplicated, or mimicked and proliferate.
■ Strengthening and Elimination of the Proliferation of Existing Things
At this time, not only new things receive positive feedback. Among the existing set of things, some things, due to interaction with the new ones, receive more positive feedback than before. These existing things also have their reproduction, duplication, and imitation enhanced, strengthening their ability to proliferate.
On the other hand, there are things whose positive feedback weakens due to the spread of new and existing things. In such cases, their reproduction, duplication, and imitation are restrained. Given enough time, they may eventually be eliminated.
■ Mechanism of Proliferation
Upon closer examination, there are two cases for reproduction, duplication, and imitation. One where the thing itself performs it and one where another entity does.
The former is self-replication, with DNA-bearing organisms being representative. In this case, as long as the thing itself receives overall positive feedback, it will proliferate through self-replication.
The latter applies to evolving sets of things that do not self-replicate. In this case, not only new things but also existing things capable of producing, duplicating, or mimicking them must strengthen overall positive feedback. New things and things that produce, duplicate, and mimic them mutually enhance each other, enabling proliferation.
■ Evolution of Things and Evolution of Loops
For things that self-replicate like organisms, the strength of the positive feedback that newly emerged things receive can estimate the strength of their proliferation to some extent.
In this case, it can be captured as the evolution of individual things.
However, for sets of things that do not self-replicate, focusing only on the new things won’t reveal the strength of proliferation.
The strength of the positive feedback received by things that produce, duplicate, or mimic is more important than the strength of the new things. Without the former proliferating, the latter cannot proliferate.
There’s a looped relationship where new things and things that produce, duplicate, or mimic them influence each other. For non-self-replicating things, focusing on this loop makes it easier to understand its expansion. By considering the strength of positive feedback in this loop, you can estimate the strength of the loop’s expansion.
In this case, it might be easier to understand if you shift from viewing the evolution of individual things to considering the evolution of individual loops.
■ Thing-Centered Perspective and Loop-Centered Perspective
By organizing in this manner, we realize that even for self-replicating things, we can consider them from a loop’s perspective. New things belong to multiple loops, and the sum of feedback from each loop affects their proliferation.
On the other hand, non-self-replicating things can also be seen as converging points in loops similar to self-replicating things. Evaluating their proliferation might be challenging in this view, but they can be understood under the same structure.
Thus, both thing-centered and loop-centered perspectives are selectable when analyzing. Depending on the objective or subject, you can choose the perspective that’s easier to handle.
■ Co-evolution and Inevitable Coincidence
From a loop-centric perspective, the phenomenon known as co-evolution can be seen as the evolution of the loop itself. Co-evolution is the phenomenon where species with a win-win relationship, like bees and flowers, evolve to maintain and strengthen their relationship. Bees collect nectar from flowers as food, and flowers rely on bees to transport their pollen.
From an object-centric perspective, it seems like bees evolve and flowers evolve, as if these separate evolutionary paths coincidentally align. On the other hand, from the loop-centric perspective, one can perceive that the loop of dependence between bees and flowers is what’s evolving.
Consider the initial establishment of this relationship. Was it the bee that first developed an attraction to flowers, or was it the flower that first developed the trait of storing nectar? From the object-centric perspective, the question arises as to which came first. From a loop-centric point of view, the focus is on the fact that the loop was established initially. From the establishment of the loop, one could argue that the traits of the bee and the flower were acquired simultaneously.
In DNA mutations, some directly influence evolution and natural selection, while others neither benefit nor harm. This is like an aspect of play, varying traits amongst individuals. If a bee with an inclination towards flowers met a flower that stored nectar, and this coincidence formed a loop, it’s not so mysterious.
I refer to the simultaneous appearance of two entities resulting in a positive feedback loop as “inevitable coincidence of the loop.”
■ Differentiation and Replacement
During evolution, a new entity may form multiple positive feedback loops. As evolution progresses, the role that the entity played in the feedback loop might be realized by multiple entities. I’ll call this differentiation.
Differentiation is about forming feedback loops through division of labor. This allows each entity to specialize, playing a more advanced role. Furthermore, as they become more specialized and single-purposed, they become easier to replace. This means that an entirely different entity could replace an existing one in the loop, offering a potential for the loop to evolve.
This is similar to the world of system development, where a micro-architecture split into multiple modules is preferred over a monolithic architecture. In a micro-architecture, it is possible to enhance functions or improve performance in parts.
Viewing evolution from a loop-centric perspective allows us to see such phenomena.
■ Perspective of Interfaces
From an object-centric view, it appears that entities are incorporated into multiple feedback loops.
From a loop-centric view, it seems as though multiple entities are embedded within a feedback loop.
We’ll refer to the point of contact between the entity and the feedback loop as an “interface.” Thus, an entity can be seen as a collection of interfaces, and likewise, a feedback loop can be described as a collection of interfaces.
■ Collection of Spacetime Asymmetric Interfaces
When viewing entities and feedback loops as collections of interfaces, they appear as if time and space have been swapped.
Entities, in a spatial sense, are static patterns where multiple interfaces converge at a single point, extending along the time axis. In contrast, feedback loops have a spatial expansion, and on the time axis, they showcase a dynamic pattern where interactions across multiple interfaces condense within a specific duration.
Viewed in this manner, the interfaces mentioned here aren’t merely interfaces existing between entities of the same dimension, but are asymmetric interfaces. This asymmetry imparts an effect that seems to swap time and space. From this observation, it seems apt to refer to these interfaces as “spacetime asymmetric interfaces.”
Both entities and feedback loops can be represented as collections of spacetime asymmetric interfaces. Therefore, the entirety of static and dynamic structures appearing in evolution should be expressible as an assembly of spacetime asymmetric interfaces.
■ What Passes Through the Spacetime Asymmetric Interface?
My evolutionary model consists of spacetime asymmetric interfaces, entities that have coalesced as spatial patterns, and feedback loops that have coalesced as temporal patterns. Therefore, its fundamental component is the spacetime asymmetric interface.
So, what exactly passes through the spacetime asymmetric interface?
In essence, what passes through the spacetime asymmetric interface is the “effect.” The effect exerted by entities, the effect received by entities, and the effect circulating within the feedback loop — transmitting these effects is the role of the spacetime asymmetric interface.
Entities are collections of various effects, encompassing both received and exerted influences. Similarly, feedback loops are also accumulations of effects, with influences forming loop structures, chaining cyclically over time.
Effects can originate from various domains and perspectives, including physical, chemical, environmental, biological, intellectual, psychological, as well as technology, culture, academics, and human relationships.
Therefore, viewing the evolutionary model as a collection of effects inevitably requires a multifaceted perspective from various fields. While a dominant primary field or viewpoint may exist for the evolutionary subject under analysis, influences from outside these domains often cannot be disregarded. Consequently, it is imperative to approach this using interdisciplinary insights to capture it from multiple angles.
■ Decomposition and Reduction
Generally, when trying to understand large and complex things, breaking them down into smaller elements can make them easier to understand. On the other hand, it is believed that some complex systems cannot be fully understood by merely decomposing them into smaller elements and combining them. This is called an emergent phenomenon.
However, my opinion is that the inability to understand might be due to the incorrect method of decomposition.
For instance, when analyzing the profits of a large company, breaking it down by business units or product units and clarifying sales, fixed costs, and variable costs can reveal the overall profit structure. Yet, if you consider the company as a collection of employees and try to understand it by breaking it down per individual, it would be difficult to grasp the overall profit structure.
On the other hand, if analyzing a company’s value, you can’t fully grasp the entire picture by just breaking down the profit aspect. Decomposition into aspects other than profit, like employee engagement, company branding, and the alignment between social background and company purpose, is necessary.
If the method of decomposition is wrong, it can appear as if there’s an enigmatic phenomenon that can’t be understood even after decomposition, similar to emergent phenomena. However, with the right decomposition, even if some aspects can’t be covered, understanding should be significantly improved.
■ Decomposition and Reduction of Effects
Viewing the evolutionary model as a collection of effects implies that effects are the minimal units. Typically, it’s common to think that the world consists of material things, where materials play the main role and effects are secondary. In the evolutionary model I’m proposing, effects play the main role, and material things are secondary.
The point is to choose the perspective that’s useful depending on the situation. When considering evolution or life phenomena, I believe it’s better to prioritize effects. By decomposing into effects, and understanding the entire system as a collection of effects, one might be able to understand evolution and life phenomena without getting lost in the vague idea of emergence.
The symbiosis of bees and flowers is a collection of two effects: facilitating pollination by transporting pollen and providing an energy source in the form of nectar. These effects appear over time, allowing for an understanding of how they evolved together.
Such effects are indivisible minimal units. These foundational effects are born when something exerting an effect meets something receiving it.
Even in the process of chemical evolution, various effects are born, such as facilitating chemical reactions at specific temperatures or pH levels, protecting against ultraviolet rays that break down chemical substances, accumulating energy as sugar, fixing the positional relationship between chemical substances, and ensuring substances don’t freely move between inside and outside. If you consider life from the perspective of these effects, understanding should become clearer. At the very least, it becomes clearer than merely considering it as a collection of chemical substances and reactions.
■Order and Chaos in Complexity
Effects are multifaceted and highly complex. Therefore, some might argue that it is impossible to grasp all the effects. However, when it comes to understanding evolution and life, there should be a distinction between significant effects and minor ones. It would be best to unravel from the important ones. Although there are countless types of effects, their number should be far less compared to the types and patterns of chemical substances that constitute life. This is because numerous chemical substances and reactions produce similar effects, making it possible to understand them when consolidated under the unit of “effect.”
Of course, it doesn’t mean that all effects can be structured into a comprehensible form. There are numerous effects that do not directly relate to evolution and life, and chains of effects may not always fit into such systematic feedback loops. However, when observing evolution and life, we intuitively sense a great deal of order within them.
What lacks order is true chaos. Still, I believe that the complexity found in evolution and life leans more towards the complexity of order rather than the complexity of chaos. For this reason, even through trial and error, by identifying and assembling these crucial effects, I trust it’s possible to understand the order within this complexity, not just intuitively but as a system.
■Foundational Conditions for Evolutionary Potential
A crucial condition for evolution is the existence of things that can affect each other and the potential for these effects to form loop structures.
Things need to sustain spacetime asymmetrical interfaces over the temporal axis continuously. To do this, entities that can maintain their structure statically, like solids or structural entities, are required rather than fluid entities like gases or liquids. Even for conceptual entities, it’s essential that they can statically maintain the same structure.
Additionally, effects must be able to form loop structures. It’s challenging to have diverse loop structures if everything is static and lacks fluidity. Therefore, a fluid component is necessary.
If, when new things or new loops are constructed, new types of effects emerge, evolution can potentially advance. If new kinds of effects do not arise, that world is probably one where only optimization progresses through feedback loops and changes in things. The emergence of new types of effects is crucial for evolution. This means that for evolution to occur, the evolution of effects is essential.
Furthermore, there’s a need for an external energy supply to sophisticate structures. It’s also crucial that environments exist where various static structures and dynamic loops can be produced with sufficiently high-density diversity. Additionally, the balance between environmental stability and change is another point worth noting as an ideal cradle for evolution.
While it’s challenging to clarify all conditions definitively, I believe we have elucidated some foundational conditions for evolutionary potential.
■ In Conclusion
In my quest to explore the origins of life, I have pondered the evolution of entities involving intelligent humans, biological entities, and non-biological entities.
In this article, based on those thoughts, I have attempted to abstractly model the concept of evolution.
I believe that evolution is often thought of primarily in terms of organisms capable of self-replication. However, as discussed in the mechanisms of proliferation, even if something cannot self-replicate, if the entity that has been created can reinforce the entity that created it, proliferation is possible. This means that even entities incapable of self-replication can evolve.
Additionally, by adopting a loop-centric perspective, it becomes relatively simple to understand how loops formed by the collaboration of multiple entities can emerge and evolve, replacing the concepts of coevolution and differentiation. This is also a distinctive feature of my model.
Furthermore, by further abstracting the model and introducing the perspective of viewing evolution as a collection of spacetime asymmetric interfaces, I was able to clarify that “effect” is the focal point when we attempt to grasp the concept of evolution. This provided theoretical support for the need for an interdisciplinary perspective.
I also presented the idea that evolution is driven by the evolution of effects. This perspective allows us to decompose the remarkable properties added through evolution. Here, the fundamental components are not material elements like molecules, atoms, or particles, but rather effects. If we understand that effects are the minimal units of evolution and that effects encompass a diverse range of fields and concepts, I believe we can understand systems, which are collections of effects, in a reductive manner without relying on the concept of emergence.
