[DeepIron]

I recommend to make yourself familiar with concepts as developed by Erich Jantsch, Franesco Varela, Ilya Prigogine, Humberto Maturana, Hermann Haken, Ken Wilber, Heinz von Foerster, as well as (more speculative but still unobjected) Rupert Sheldrake.

These authors write mostly in the theoretical realms. Wilbers entwines mysticism with philosophy, Jantsch *assumes* self organizing, Haken's "Synergistics" is build on "self organization" which can be proven not to work when accessed as a system from which organic life has sprung. The other authors provide theories which are not proveable in their entirety. I'm not closed their points of view, it's simply that at some point, their theories break down leaving more than a few questions.

As I said above, matter seem to have an inherent ability of self-organisation, meaning that in a chaos-theoretic sense structures are enfolded inside of it and unfold in an unpredictable (too complex thus chaotic) yet preconditioned manner. We also know from quantum sciences that two particles can be linked in a non-time-depending manner and their mutual behavior influenced by mind, as if they respond with a kind of mind by their own.

Matter is self organizing only at the most simplistic levels and is not capable of organizing into the more complex structures necessary to create life. To wit: to self organize molecules of sodium chloride will only result in repetitive chains of sodium chloride. There is no affinity for a sodium chloride molecule to organize with any other molecule.
What is missing is the ability to organize the far greater structure of even the simplest cell, an organism that is powered, reproduced and made unique of "molecular machines", each with it's own unique structure, and requiring its own organization.

For life to have arisen from "self organization" is simply too astronomically remote to consider.

There is not really a linear "tree of life" as Darwin suggested. It is not that a species forms and transforms always towards a more modern and better design, and it also is not that there always is only one example of a developement tree - the spearhead of modernisation, so to speak. In fact, species from many time phases of earth'S history can coexist in time, for a longer or shorter period of time. Even some relics from the time of the dinosaurs continue to exist until today. Other first design studies, like the very huge single-cellular life forms that once have existed and reached sizes of up to 1-2 meters (all being just one single cell) may prove to be so unusable that they dissapear very quickly again. Evolution is not really any linear, but circular, it is not necessarily imporving, but sometimes even goes backward, or is simply changing. Only the general trend seem to be "upwards", while inside this trend single species nevertheless can get stuck, or move backward. the cambrium explosion oif lifeforms may have come from the fact that high developed multiple cell-lifeforms were relatively new, and little "experience" regarding how to approach such designs in the best way were "available" for Mrs Evolution. It s loike with econimoc growth of countries raising from a catastrophe or a war: in the beginning, everything is flat and empty, and thus high econmical growth rates are possible, but the more developed the economy is, the smaller the growth rates become, and the harder they are to be maintained.

The unfortunate aspect of this theory is that there is absolutely no record of this ascension in the fossil record. The other aspect is that the Cambrian Explosion occured in a very short (geologically speaking) span of time. There has been nothing like it since..

Another issue, in your example of economies, *something* acts as a stimulus...

for a fascinating and very enjoyable summary (600 pages) of the developement of life throughout the different phases of Earth's history, and the history of the oceans, I recommend frank Schätzing's "Nachrichten aus einem unbekannten Universum". It is aimed at the public market, and written in a very amusing, entertaining style. It is a great bestseller in Germany, since long time now.

I will have to look into it. Thank you.

I personally do not "believe" in the Big Bang. The theory raises more questions than it gives answers. Fact is - if something happend, why it happend, and when - we do not know. It is a tradition of western thinking to think in linear time concepts, where quantums of time pass by and create a flow from the past topwards the future. this way of thining is questioned by phasicists in some branches of theories, and it is replaced with a circular thinking in Asian ophilosophy. That we think there must have been a point in time that marks a beginning, comes from our linear time concept. In circles, you have no beginning. So, when philosophizing about the "beginning", or "origin" of existence, you cannot avoid to take the context of your thiniking's developement into account. In other words: it may be thats cience is not fit to answer the question for beginning(s) of universe(s). and in the infinite-world theory by Everett Gordon and Wheeler, every single event on quantum level already creates a splitiing of the universe in which it takes place: into one universe where it took place, and another universe where it did not take place. In other, a myriad of universes is created every i every moment, right now, ad infinitum. theory, yes. But on this matter, we probably will never have anything more than theories. seen pragmatically, it maybe doe snot make sense for john Smith to waste too much time on thinking about this all this. And even if he would find an answer that pleases him more than other theories - he still would need to live his life right here, and deal with the daily routines and challenges, and the reality as he perceives it. that puts the value of this effort into relation, i think. the same is true for mythologic explanations of why the universe, as we understand and interpret it, is there, instead of nothing.

I think you would find the Kalam Cosmological Argument very interesting. I has been around for a very long time and has been passed down for centuries. Simply stated, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is constituted by 3 sub-arguments:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

A practical example. If you and a friend were sitting at an outdoor cafe and a car nearby "backfired", and your friend asked, "what caused that?" You wouldn't say, "Nothing caused it." Why? Because something caused it.

Speaking of evolution, a missing link has been found according to this article.

Hmm, I think a "missing link" concerning a particular simple single celled organism and algae is interesting, but a far cry from the evolutionist thinking regarding the ascension of Man from the apes... for which no "missing link" has ever been found.
Please note also the article calls it "the nearest relative". This certainly doesn't validate at all that the organism IS from the same phyllum or species branch and leaves much detail unanswered.