The Kingdoms of Cladistics

In the previous post, I discussed cladistics, the new way of classifying living things based on their position in the tree of life, and mentioned some of the difficulties that arise when trying to adapt the previous classification system, based on the taxonomic tree and Linnaeus's classic categories—kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species—to cladistics.

There are more difficulties. For example, let's consider the concept of kingdom, Linnaeus's highest taxonomic category. Traditionally, living things were divided into two kingdoms: animals and plants. These two kingdoms were clearly separate, with very different characteristics. Thus, animals were defined as organic beings that live, feel, and move by their own impulse, while the plant kingdom were beings that live but do not feel and do not move. It was acknowledged that these definitions were imperfect, because there were exceptions, such as sponges, which barely move but are animals, and some plants, like mimosas, which seem to sense certain stimuli and move in response.

Cladistics: A new classification of living beings

Tree of life
https://evogeneao.s3.amazonaws.com/
images/content/es/tree-of-life_2000.png

In 1735, the Swedish naturalist Carl von Linné (Linnaeus) created the binomial system of biological nomenclature still in use today, and a classification system for living things that is becoming obsolete. This system used at first seven successive categories: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. The last two categories are used to name the species. Thus, according to Linnaeus's classification, the human species belongs to the animal kingdom, the phylum Chordata, the class Mammalia, the order Primates, the family Hominidae, the genus Homo, and the species sapiens. Its scientific name, according to Linnaeus's binomial system, is therefore Homo sapiens.

Time Travel and Christ’s Crucifixion

Christ crucified, wood carving
by Manuel Alfonseca Santana

If time travel were possible, the greatest incentive for travelers would be to witness firsthand famous events of the past, such as the assassination of Julius Caesar and many others. The fact that we have no record of the presence of strangers in any of these cases is a significant argument against the feasibility of time travel.

There is no doubt that one of these events, perhaps the most famous of all, would be the Crucifixion of Christ. If time travel were possible, there should have been an avalanche of visitors from future times at Golgotha ​​to witness the most important event in the history of humankind.

In fact, this idea has been used in science fiction literature. In a novella titled There Will Be Time, Poul Anderson has his protagonist travel to Jerusalem on the day of the Crucifixion to witness Christ's death. Upon arriving, he discovers a large crowd, almost all of whom are time travelers.

Quantum Conscience or Conscient Quantum?

The second hard problem of modern science is the origin of consciousness or the problem of free will. This post focuses on the relation of this problem with quantum mechanics. As an example of the difficulty of the matter, I begin by including two famous quotes from renowned scientists:

·         J. B. S. Haldane, Possible Worlds (1927): The universe [of quantum theory] is, not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

·         James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe (1930): The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.

Natural and artificial intelligence

As we saw in the previous post, the book Free Agents by Kevin Mitchell deals with the origins of human consciousness and free will. In a brief epilogue, the book addresses the topic of strong artificial intelligence—the real kind, which doesn't yet exist—and formulates some hypotheses about the possibility of its becoming feasible.

It emphasizes that one of the most active branches of research in AI, especially in recent years, is the field of artificial neural networks, which has led to advances such as Large Language Models (LLMs). It compares these neural networks in our programs with those that exist in our brains and in the brains of many animals more or less similar to us. It says that we are witnessing impressive advances in fields such as image recognition, text prediction, speech recognition, and language translation, based on the use of deep learning, remotely inspired on the architecture of the cerebral cortex.

The future is not written

In several posts in this blog, I've discussed determinism, always from a critical perspective. For example, in a post entitled The debacle of determinism, I mentioned the three devastating attacks suffered by determinism during the 20th century: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (although it would be better to use the name Heisenberg originally proposed: the indeterminacy principle); chaos theory; and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Chapter 7 of Kevin Mitchell's book Free Agents, titled, like this post, The future is not written, analyzes and refutes determinism. However, it doesn't discuss just one type of determinism, but three, refuting them one after another in successive chapters. What are these three types of determinism?

1.      Physical predeterminism: the idea that only one possible timeline exists. In other words, that the future is entirely determined by the past; that the entire history of the universe is predetermined from the beginning; that nothing that happens could have happened otherwise.

The problem of the origin of life

In a previous post titled Paul Davies, popularizer of science, I mentioned the two hard problems of modern science, so called because after several centuries trying to solve them, and although considerable progress has been made, the solution to these problems seems to recede further as we move forward, a paradigmatic case of the horizon effect, which I discussed in another post in this blog with the same title. These problems are: on the one hand, the origin of life, and on the other, the origin of free will, which is sometimes identified with the problem of consciousness, although they are not exactly the same, but are closely related. In this post, I will discuss the first problem. The next post will deal with the second.

The problem of the origin of life is not scientific. It is historical. Happened only once in the history of our planet, and is impossible to reproduce, so it is beyond the reach of experimental science. Even if we were able to create synthetic life (not to be confused with artificial life, a branch of computer science), we would not know if that method of generating life was the same as what took place shortly after the origin of the Earth.