QUANTUM PHYSICS AND PARALLEL WORLDS

Does the universe behave according to some law? 

Ionian science (ca 500 BC, in Greece/Turkey) suggested that the world could be explained by simple mathematical laws rather than religion. Aristotle (ca 300 BC) took a more philosophical approach to understanding life, where he still included God in the universal laws. He did not believe in the existence of atoms as this, according to him, defied the concept of a soul. Descartes (ca 1600 AD) was the first to explicitly state the concept of the "laws of nature", still including God in his paradigm. For many years, Newtonian science considered physics to be linear, but about 100 years ago this view of science was heavily questioned after the discovery of quantum physics. 

In 1927, Clinton Davisson and Lester Germer were the first to conduct the infamous double-slit experiment. Electrons (or in other versions of the experiment, smaller particles called buckyballs) were sent through a wall where first one slit was open, and then again when both slits were open. When only one slit was open and electrons (or buckyballs) were sent out randomly to pass through the slit, the particles seemed to move like a beam. However, when both slits were open, a single particle created interference patterns - the particle acted like waves rather than a linear beam. This means that when both slits were open the particle entered the first slit, the second slit and neither slit simultaneously. These startling results was the discovery of quantum physics by which "nothing is ever located at a definite point... each particle has some probability of being found anywhere in the universe" (pg 93-94, "The Grand Design", 2010). All modifications of the double-slit experiment have confirmed similar results. At the micro-level, quantum physics is evident, however it is not so apparent at the macro-level. Is the elephant both on the savanna in South Africa but also in my apartment in Europe at the same time? There are hopes to test quantum theory on viruses, that would test the theory on living organisms. 

The question that quantum physics evokes: do parallel worlds exist?

Stephen Hawking's "The Grand Design" (2010) explains that laws of the universe can be described under a candidate theory called M-theory- the theory of physics that aims to explain everything. M-theory is the marriage of, amongst other things, Einsteins theory of relativity and quantum physics. 

SURVIVAL OF THE SELFISH GENE

Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" was originally published in 1976 and at that time brought a wave of revolution within the biological and general public community. He brings an enlightening perspective on why and how humans and organisms have developed in the way that they have. Before life was around, there were chemicals, H20, C02, ammonia and the like. Experiments in laboratories that have tried to create "life" through a few basic chemicals were able to create organic substances, purine and pyrimidines- the building blocks of deoxirybonucleic acid, DNA. Millions of years ago, DNA swam around in the so-called "primordial soup". And a conglomerate of DNA created genes.

Organisms, according to Dawkins, are like clouds. They come and go. They die. The material that composes the clouds however continue to thrive, even though the clouds disappear. With the background of a wild and aggressive world that the genes thrived in, the gene had to survive. Through evolution, the genes developed and coupled with other genes. Genes became the blueprint that told cells how and to create layers of skin/plant tissue, to create eyes to see, to make legs to run.

Through evolution, the gene created the "survival machine". The "survival machine" has taken many forms. It has taken the form of you, and I, of plants and animals. At the most core of evolution, lies the ultimate unit of interest, not the species, but the gene that wants to survive.

In his book, Dawkin's applies the context of the survival of the basic gene on the basic behaviour of organisms and animals. This paradigm is quite simple to grasp but it is nevertheless an entertaining way to see the world. Below are only a few of interpretations of Dawkin's examples.

Why do many female species hold off copulation with males? This is evident in many species, such as birds. This is also a behaviour or instinct developed for a reason by the gene. It is interesting to first note that females in most species (albeit not humans) are more aesthetically bland compared to males who are more vibrant-looking. The good-looking males have to win over the females which takes time and effort. The female cannot copulate with whomever, whenever because after the fertilization of the egg, she is stuck for some time waiting for that offspring (and later taking care of it). Males can however go about and enjoy copulation whenever they wish without much risk. The female wants to ensure that she does not copulate with an unreliable male that will not stick around after birth. Copulation with an unreliable male is sub-optimal in the perspective of the gene, as it entails greater risks for the survival of the offspring - or selfish gene.

Why do some species have an affinity to belong in a group? This desire was, according to Dawkins, developed by the gene. Aggregating individuals on the savanna and in the sea, can give a higher probability of survival for the gene. One or a few individuals may  have to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the gene pool by warning off members of the community on upcoming dangers.

What is the biological reason to care for ones offspring? Why don't we just care for the offspring of a collective or the like? Genetically speaking, offspring is exactly 50% of one's own genetic makeup. Caring for one's offspring means that the selfish gene is ensuring it's own survival forward in time. According to Dawkins, this implies that one should actually be just as equally concerned for the well-being of ones offspring as ones full brother or sister, they also share of 50% of ones own genes.

As humans gather more knowledge, we are driven not only by genes but also by so-called "memes". Animals act the way they do because they are driven by the genes to do so.  Of course, there are also other factors that dictate human behaviour. This is what Dawkins calls "memes", or simply put, culture. We do not act solely because our genes tell us to act a certain way- there are obviously other factors at force. Just as how genes tell us how to act (mating, group-belonging, and caring for ones offspring), culture, religion and politics have propagated into the minds of different individuals and tell them how to act. Genes and memes are very similar in some sense. Individuals die, but religion, culture and politics can survive,  proliferate and morph. Individuals die, but our genes continue to survive, proliferate and evolve.

"I am trying to build up the idea that animal behaviour, altruistic or selfish, is under the control of genes only in an indirect, but still very powerful sense." pg. 60, "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, 1989 version.