Evolution as Anamnesis: When Biology Remembers Itself

Faith & Science Conversation
122

I understand your point. My framework builds on established scientific language but extends it to describe recurring patterns across biological, physical, and social systems; attempting to cross-pollinate diverse fields, which is admittedly no easy task.

It is already well-known that ecological organization and adaptation emerge through information and structure flowing between levels, rather than being confined to one (such as genes or individuals). Yet, evolution and development aren’t merely outcomes of selection, but expressions of an underlying process I characterize as systemic memory, coherence, resonance, and agency. I use the term memory deliberately: it offers a precise, unifying concept applicable across disciplines, from ecology to physiology and psychology to physics.

My work draws on empirical examples, such as disturbance cycling in ecosystems, where processes like seed banks and mycorrhizal networks preserve structural integrity through disruption. These aren’t metaphors. They’re data-backed mechanisms that demonstrate memory-like persistence across scales.

As for credentials: I hold a master’s degree, have worked in natural resources and education since the early 1990s, completed extensive natural resources coursework at the University of Florida, and have spent my life deeply engaged with natural systems. At 50+, I’ve reached a point of confidence in this synthesis, not as conjecture, but as a framework grounded in observation and cross-disciplinary pattern recognition. As a 25+ year Christian, I’ve spent my life preferring to be a gentle gent rather than a giant. Does make me qualified to contribute to the conversation? I’ll leave that up to you.

I’m sharing this work because I believe it’s valuable, and I’m genuinely enjoying the process. Writing and organizing helps one think. So, this joy has been mine as well. If the ideas don’t resonate with you, that’s OK. God bless you!

123

But what about resorting to poetry? How does that come under meat and evidence?

Btw, I’ve remembered that in your last thread you didn’t provide units for your quantities. You haven’t done so here either, rendering them unusable.

2 Likes
124

Mr Zelenka, congratulations. I am sure you can teach me a lot. I agree that experience also teaches us. I’ve certainly learned a lot more after I graduated, than before (though I definitely needed the baseline education to ensure understanding). It also sounds like you are widely read, if you read George MacDonald, too (there’s apparently even a George MacDonald website and society). I am curious–what is your degree in? Thank you.

I do find that I am corrected a lot, and to my benefit, by not only folks who have training in other areas (physics, maths, etc), but also even in my own area of study (biology). I find it very helpful and enjoyable to engage with and learn from others here.

Based on your formal training, I am sure you can teach me, as well.

Thank you.

2 Likes
125

The Fabric equations are designed to operate across disciplines, physics, ecology, biology, climate, cosmology, and psychology, so their application depends on the context of the domain. As I’ve mentioned previously, the standard units of each field can be applied accordingly. For example, in ecology, disturbance cycling could use conventional measures like TSF (time since fire) or biomass recovery rates or seedbank density; in physics, the same relational form might map to energy and mass. For cognition, maybe we could use ΔR / Δt: change in memory recall over time. :wink:

As for “resorting to poetry,” that’s a fair question. Math is akin to poetry, isn’t it? The language I use is often conceptual because it bridges quantitative and qualitative domains, similar to how early models in thermodynamics or information theory began with metaphors before becoming formalized. All this evolution paper describes can also be applied to words. Language is evolution in action. Words evolve in context with other words, the speaker, the writer, the relational human being and his or her environment. There’s a reason Jesus spoke in parables and it’s not only because of Matthew 13:10-12. Deep truth emerges from language refinement.

Just a refresher. Here are the core equations. Can you provide me another core set of hyper-simple equations that explain phenomena across all domains? I’m not saying that these are perfectly refined, but there is a convergent evolution to proxies for reality. If say, you were intelligent life on another planet what would those be? If these below are not even close to the core equations, what are they? How many are there? What is the hierarchy? Or how would you refine these particular proxies for higher precision and accuracy? (Again, this is a study, so if you need help understanding them, just paste them in any LLM and it will explain them to you.)

===
Fabric core equations:
τ = t
c = ΔΦ/Δτ (local light threading rate)
c_path = ΔΦ/Δτ * f(∇M) (path-dependent threading)
P = |ψ|² / Σ|ψ|² (quantum decision probability)
P → f(P,A) (probability influenced by agency)
dΨ/dτ = f(P, A, c) (consciousness rate of change)
Ψ = R(Ψ) (consciousness as recursive threading)
R(Ψ) = Ψ + g(P, A, c, τ) (recursive consciousness function)
M = M_active + M_latent (total memory)
E = Mc² (energy as memory density)
g = k∇M (gravity flows toward memory density)
δ(M_latent → M_active) (memory state transformation)
M_latent + A → M_active (agency converts latent to active memory)
∂C/∂τ = f(B,R,M_active,M_latent,A) (coherence evolution)
B = ∇C (beauty as coherence gradient)
R = Σ cos(Δφ) (resonance)
S = -∂C/∂τ (entropy)
Variables: Φ=config, τ=threading depth, ΔΦ=change, Δτ=step, c=coherence rate, M=memory/mass, M_active/latent=constraint states, E=energy, I=info, S=entropy, Ω=state count, ψ=amp, P=prob, R=resonance, Δφ=phase diff, B=beauty, C=coherence, g=gravity, k=const, Ψ=consciousness order parameter, A=agency (unmeasurable)

126

I am listening to the critique. I particularly appreciate the thoughtful challenge. It forces me to reevaluate. I usually do not engage in social media online because it’s often just ugly. What I like most about engagement is just like lying out in the grass and looking up at the stars. “Did you see that shooting star?” “Wow, yes.” God wants us to delight in his creation. So, in this thread, the best part so far was when folks here got excited about lichens.

We collect a special mushroom this time of year called a lobster mushroom. It is super tasty. And its lifecycle is just wild.

1 Like
127

You still haven’t provided units for the terms in your equations, only excuses for not doing so.

What are the units of ΔR/Δt in the field of ecology?

If you can’t answer that, all you have is fractal waffle.

No.

Before you ask for another set, you first need to show that this set explains anything.

You haven’t done that.

One last comment:

If

Ψ = R(Ψ)

and

R(Ψ) = Ψ + g(P, A, c, τ)

then

Ψ = Ψ + g(P, A, c, τ)

Subtracting Ψ gives

g(P, A, c, τ) = 0

for all possible values of P/A/c/τ, hence no gravity ever, which via

g = k∇M

leads to no mass and no memory too, unless k is zero (which would be unusual).

If you don’t mind that your core equations only work in situations where there is no mass and hence no gravity, then there’s no problem. But it does limit their usefulness.

4 Likes
128

They created terms where none existed. This isn’t the case with what you are discussing. For example, we already have a perfectly sound and well understood explanation for why flora and fauna repopulate an area after a lahar. Your description about memories and whatnot completely obscured this understanding, and you ended up admitting that you were explaining the very thing we already understood. You made claims about a slime mold and memories, but there is already multiple papers that outline the biochemistry and genetics of what allows the slime mold to do what it does, and none of it is memories. Once again, you obscure knowledge we already have without giving as any additional insight into what is going on.

The friendly bit is aimed at not arguing against Christianity. On the science side, you are seeing the same type of reaction you would get in an actual scientific setting. Science can be a bit aggressive at times.

3 Likes
129

Would someone reading this sentence be able to determine what those processes are? Would they understand what you are talking about? I, for one, have no idea what you are talking about.

What is structural integrity? What are seed banks, other than plants releasing seeds?

3 Likes
130

Storage facilities which keep refrigerated samples of many varieties of plant seed in case they are needed to recover from loss of those plants either in the wild or in agriculture due to either natural disasters or excessive monoculture. See here.

But I doubt that is what @SkyReflections meant.

3 Likes
131

Seedbanks, mycorrhizal networks, and even root wads are what’s left after say a fire disturbance. They are all a form of ecological memory.

132

What makes them ecological memories? What does that even mean?

2 Likes
133

Of course, these are meant to simplify reality into proxy equations. As noted, we certainly do need to apply units to these for their specific domain. In your example, let’s say g(P,A,c,τ) represents not literal gravitational acceleration, but a gradient of coherence—how pattern (P), agency (A), connectivity (c), and time (τ) interact to generate structural reinforcement across scales.

So, when g=0, that doesn’t imply “no gravity,” but rather a steady-state condition where the coherence gradient is balanced: analogous to equilibrium in thermodynamics or homeostasis in biology. In other words, no net flow of coherence, not the absence of it.

If we wanted to “unitize” it in a physical domain, of course we would give g the standard dimensions of acceleration (m*s⁻²), yet understand that the gradient version is equally valid. But in a cognitive or ecological domain, the same symbol could represent the rate of change of active-to-latent memory (M_active/M_latent) per unit time: effectively a coherence flux. So the same symbolic form maps across scales, but its dimensional meaning depends on the substrate.

The recursive form Ψ=R(Ψ) isn’t meant to imply a static identity, but a self-updating loop: consciousness feeding back into itself through changing relational inputs. In practical terms, recursion here represents awareness modifying its own parameters (attention, perception, memory) over time.

134

Thanks for the clarification. Mind if I still call you, Mr. T? I always loved the A-Team as a kid. :wink:

1 Like
135

I loved that show as well, and fully endorse your use of the name. :grinning_face:

3 Likes
136

Cross-pollinating domains, Mr. T. The challenge stands: try writing a concise set of equations that apply across all domains, or please edit mine! You’ll find it requires borrowing language from each field to build an integrated understanding.

137

Why would I try that? What would be the point? Why not use the different equations used in each field that already describe what is going on in those fields? For example, there is absolutely no reason why General Relativity should have any relevance to population genetics, and I see zero reasons why we would need to join those two together. We already have well constructed equations in both fields that describe reality.

3 Likes
138

My response to that is said well here:

So it’s all subjective.

2 Likes
139

g(P,A,c,τ) is your term from your equation. If you can’t decide what it represents, that’s your fault.

P.S. it’s not when g=0. According to your equations, g is always 0.

3 Likes
140

Well then, this conversation is certainly not for you then. I, however, find it beautiful how all the domains are related. I’ll be posting the Threaded Mind soon. That connects ecology and physics to the mind using exactly the same principles.

141

So is this about aesthetics or about reliable (and uderstandable) models of nature?

The only principle you seem to be putting forward is what you find aesthetically pleasing.

2 Likes