A Trinity Framework: Linking Structure, Evolution, and Conscious Experience

Lumen said:
I’m not suggesting anything immaterial or separate from physics. By structure and configuration I’m referring to arrangements of matter and energy, just described at a more abstract level.

The point was about how we frame those arrangements, not proposing a system without components.
Click to expand...
OK configurations of matter and fields I can live with. (Not "energy", though, please: energy is merely one property of physical systems, not a thing in its own right.)

But then "stable" seems a little redundant. Stablity just means a configuration that persists over time. In physical systems there is a continuum between highly unstable and very stable, but no qualitative distinction between them, really.

So I could perhaps paraphrase what you have said by saying that constructing a picture of reality involves discerning the configurations of matter and fields, how they interact and change over time through the processes of nature and (rather obviously) having the means to perceive all this.

Is that fair?
 
Lumen said:
Are structure, evolution, and consciousness actually separate issues, or are they different ways of describing the same underlying process at different scales
Click to expand...
To give a better handle on this (as I also seek to do in your other thread), are you taking consciousness as an emergent process? And is your view kindred to panpsychism (see Chalmers), in that matter would have intrinsic properties which give rise to such an emergence?
 
TheVat said:
To give a better handle on this (as I also seek to do in your other thread), are you taking consciousness as an emergent process? And is your view kindred to panpsychism (see Chalmers), in that matter would have intrinsic properties which give rise to such an emergence?
Click to expand...
I’m leaning toward something like an emergent process, but not in the sense of it just appearing once things get complex enough.

More that certain kinds of structure, dynamics, and integration might make it possible.

I wouldn’t say panpsychism though, I’m not assuming matter itself has intrinsic experience, it’s more that under the right conditions, experience may arise from how a system is organised and behaves over time. So I’m trying to get at what those conditions actually are rather than starting from a fixed category.
 
exchemist said:
OK configurations of matter and fields I can live with. (Not "energy", though, please: energy is merely one property of physical systems, not a thing in its own right.)

But then "stable" seems a little redundant. Stablity just means a configuration that persists over time. In physical systems there is a continuum between highly unstable and very stable, but no qualitative distinction between them, really.

So I could perhaps paraphrase what you have said by saying that constructing a picture of reality involves discerning the configurations of matter and fields, how they interact and change over time through the processes of nature and (rather obviously) having the means to perceive all this.

Is that fair?
Click to expand...
No ...
 
Lumen said:
If the latter, the lines between matter and life, physics and biology, and organism and environment start to look like modeling conveniences rather than ontological truths.
Click to expand...

Well, yes. Your theorizing strikes me as a lengthy way of describing the classic refrain “biology is just chemistry, chemistry is just physics”.

Reduced to its simplest idea, everything in biology and chemistry (and the entire universe) is about energy flow. Although the universe’s total entropy is always increasing, local structures (like galaxies and planets and life and evolutionary processes) can form because interacting ordered structures can produce cyclic energy flows and localized decreases in entropy.

So, yeah, you can model any aspect of existence any way you like. All models are wrong; some are useful. But every model sits within the slow inexorable march towards universal maximum entropy.
 
Biology is just applied chemistry.
Chemistry is just applied physics.
Physics is just applied mathematics.
:)
 
Hercules Rockefeller said:
Well, yes. Your theorizing strikes me as a lengthy way of describing the classic refrain “biology is just chemistry, chemistry is just physics”.

Reduced to its simplest idea, everything in biology and chemistry (and the entire universe) is about energy flow. Although the universe’s total entropy is always increasing, local structures (like galaxies and planets and life and evolutionary processes) can form because interacting ordered structures can produce cyclic energy flows and localized decreases in entropy.

So, yeah, you can model any aspect of existence any way you like. All models are wrong; some are useful. But every model sits within the slow inexorable march towards universal maximum entropy.
Click to expand...
I think that’s a bit of an oversimplification of what I was getting at.

I’m not making a reductionist point about biology → chemistry → physics. I’m questioning whether reality is fundamentally something that unfolds at all, or whether it exists as a complete structure, with what we call processes just being patterns within it.

Framing everything in terms of energy flow and entropy doesn’t really address that, it just describes behaviour within the system, not the nature of the system itself.

So I’d say we’re talking at slightly different levels here.
 
Lumen said:
I think that’s a bit of an oversimplification of what I was getting at.

I’m not making a reductionist point about biology → chemistry → physics. I’m questioning whether reality is fundamentally something that unfolds at all, or whether it exists as a complete structure, with what we call processes just being patterns within it.

Framing everything in terms of energy flow and entropy doesn’t really address that, it just describes behaviour within the system, not the nature of the system itself.

So I’d say we’re talking at slightly different levels here.
Click to expand...
This point about "unfolding" sounds like the argument about the nature of time.

In relativity, time is treated as just a dimension like the 3 of space, so an event is "located" in terms of 4 coordinates, one being a point in time, and all 4 of which are relative, i.e. depend on the chosen frame of reference, so not absolute. Everything just has 4 coordinates. In that sense, one can step back from the common sense notion of the "flow" of time and simply see events in terms of these 4 coordinates, somewhere along a temporospatial continuum, there being no universal past, present or future. Perhaps this is what you are getting at.

The laws of mechanics are all time-reversible as well, which raises the question of why we perceive a unidirectional flow of time.

However there is nevertheless an arrow of time, reflected in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and entropy, which derive from statistical mechanics.

So it seems to me you are at liberty to stand so far back as to see the universe as a 4D block with patterns within it, but I'm not sure whether this is particularly insightful or useful. To understand the universe you need to step up a bit closer, whereupon the classifications we make, e.g. into physics, chemistry and biology, become helpful.
 
Lumen said:
Framing everything in terms of energy flow and entropy doesn’t really address that, it just describes behaviour within the system, not the nature of the system itself.
So I’d say we’re talking at slightly different levels here.
Click to expand...
We know what a car is, and what it can do. So you're asking what is a universe and what does it do, is that right?
 
Last edited:
I was just watching something on YouTube "Nobel Prize Winner warns " This isn't our universe - James Webb found something strange".

So here's the thing:

The Hubble tension highlights something quite specific. We have two well-established ways of measuring the universe’s expansion and they don’t agree. That suggests the issue may not just be missing parameters, but something deeper about how we’re modelling “evolution” itself.

In the standard picture, the universe is treated as evolving along a single timeline. If that were strictly the case, different valid measurement methods should converge on the same expansion history.

In my earlier analogy of a “ball of wool”, I’m trying to describe a different possibility. The full structure exists as a whole, and what we call time is effectively a path traced through that structure.

From that perspective, different observational methods may not simply be measuring the same timeline more or less accurately, but could be sampling different paths or regions of the same underlying structure.

That doesn’t mean the Hubble tension proves this idea, but it does suggest that treating evolution as a single, uniform unfolding in time may already be an incomplete description.
 
IMG_2403.jpegI’ve been developing the “ball of wool” idea further, particularly how a single complete static structure could lead to different observers (or cosmological probes) extracting different effective expansion rates.

Here’s a diagram that brings the trinity together in one image:

• Structure: the complete fixed configuration of all possible states (no preferred start/end point, no global direction).

• Evolution: stable patterns or clusters that emerge and persist locally within that structure.

• Observer-dependent paths: constrained traversals through the same structure that sample different regions, which can lead to different inferred H₀ values (mock examples shown, loosely analogous to CMB, Riess, JWST-type measurements).

( I used Ai to create this visual to make the idea less abstract so while not ideal it should help a tad).
 
Last edited:
One thought that follows from this is about how ideas seem to “spread”.

If time isn’t something fundamentally flowing, but more like a path through a complete structure, then what looks like ideas originating and spreading might not actually be transmission at all.

It could be that the same underlying patterns exist within the structure, and different observers simply encounter those patterns at different points along their paths.

So instead of an idea starting somewhere and spreading outward, it might be more like multiple people independently arriving at the same pattern because it’s part of the structure they’re moving through.

That would explain why similar ideas sometimes appear in different places without any clear connection?

A good example of this might be Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.

They both arrived at the theory of evolution by natural selection independently, without one copying the other. Darwin had been working on it for years, and Wallace came to essentially the same idea separately.

That’s usually explained as them working with similar information at the same time, but it also fits with what I’m suggesting here. If certain patterns exist within the structure, then different paths could encounter the same pattern independently.

So instead of an idea originating in one place and spreading, it could be more like multiple people arriving at the same underlying pattern from different directions.
 
Last edited:
Lumen said:
View attachment 7413I’ve been developing the “ball of wool” idea further, particularly how a single complete static structure could lead to different observers (or cosmological probes) extracting different effective expansion rates.

Here’s a diagram that brings the trinity together in one image:

• Structure: the complete fixed configuration of all possible states (no preferred start/end point, no global direction).

• Evolution: stable patterns or clusters that emerge and persist locally within that structure.

• Observer-dependent paths: constrained traversals through the same structure that sample different regions, which can lead to different inferred H₀ values (mock examples shown, loosely analogous to CMB, Riess, JWST-type measurements).

( I used Ai to create this visual to make the idea less abstract so while not ideal it should help a tad).
Click to expand...
Disregard fact I didn't edit the diagram to remove issues ... I did try a few generations and overall this was best of the bunch.
 
Last edited:
Lumen said:
The Hubble tension highlights something quite specific. We have two well-established ways of measuring the universe’s expansion and they don’t agree.
Click to expand...
The difference is about 10%
Lumen said:
That suggests the issue may not just be missing parameters, but something deeper about how we’re modelling “evolution” itself.
Click to expand...
It's nothing to do with Evolution.

Lumen said:
In the standard picture, the universe is treated as evolving along a single timeline. If that were strictly the case, different valid measurement methods should converge on the same expansion history
Click to expand...
No. The expansion is not completely uniform.


Lumen said:
The full structure exists as a whole, and what we call time is effectively a path traced through that structure.
Click to expand...
Sounds a little like block universe
 
Pinball1970 said:
The difference is about 10%

It's nothing to do with Evolution.


No. The expansion is not completely uniform.



Sounds a little like block universe
Click to expand...
I’m not using “evolution” in the biological sense, I mean it more generally as change or progression within whatever model we’re using.

And I’m not trying to explain the Hubble tension in terms of non-uniform expansion. That’s a perfectly valid approach within the standard framework.

What I’m questioning is whether treating the universe as evolving along a single global timeline is the most fundamental way to describe it?

If the underlying structure exists as a whole (which is where the block universe idea comes in), then what we call “evolution” or “expansion history” might be something we infer from a particular path through that structure, rather than something that exists globally in a single, uniform way.

Re block universe theory I can see why it looks similar.

Where I think I differ is that I’m not just treating reality as static slices. I’m trying to describe the experience of time as a constrained path through a connected structure.

So rather than just saying everything exists, I’m saying what we observe depends on the path taken through that structure, which could in principle lead to different inferred histories rather than a single global one.

That’s the part I’m trying to get at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top