A

new hypothesis about the origin of life and origin of the universe
(only one hypothesis because I am unifying the two)

by Jomar Rabajante
www.jfratup.weebly.com

1) The origin of life
a. Evolution in its pure definition as change over time is true, no one
doubts it.
b. Natural selection is also a fact --- even before Charles Darwin was
born, people are already using this process in selecting desired
features of domesticated animals or plants.
c. Mutation is also a fact. Cancer is mutation.
d. Common descent in its pure definition as species originating from a
related species is also observed in many cases (I am not going to
discuss the various definitions of species or modes of speciation,
but what I generally mean here is two or more population of related
species under one phylum have similar ancestors). Note that this
common descent does not pertain to species from two phyla
originating from a common ancestor because such has no solid
evidence.
e. However, the idea of Universal Common Descent (let me call this as
UCD), which is the core of Darwinist hypothesis, is the one that is
controversial. Natural selection and mutation have limits and bound
by biological trade-offs. There are many unresolved issues --- one may
refer to the books of Stephen C. Meyer (e.g., Darwins Doubt) to have
hints about these unresolved issues (note that I am not related to Dr.
Meyer or to any institution related to him).
f. Now, I have a proposal to address this issue. I am proposing many
trees of life rather than one tree of life. One tree of life is from the
UCD hypothesis. Many trees of life is based on the hypothesis that
species do not have similar ealiest ancestor --- which current
evidences are pointing towards to. This is actually not a new proposal.
But my reason/mechanism that provides many trees of life as a
potential theory is new.
g. Here is the mechanism (which is very simple): Scientists believe there
is only one ancestor (primordial soup) because generating this
ancestor is rare. They dismiss the idea that there might be many
primoridal soups because this will make things more rarer (notice the
redundancy? more and rarer? Because the probability is nearly
null). However, this more rarer could be immaterial if we use the
idea of infinite multiverses (which I will elaborate later in the origin of
the universe). In infinite multiverses, everything is possible.

2) The origin of the universe

a. Currently, scientists believe that the origin of the universe is the big
bang. I dont have contention with this one.
b. Scientists are also considering the possibility of infinite multiverses to
explain the very exact fine tuning of the universe.
c. However, this multiverse hypothesis is currently hanging because of
lack of evidence --- which may not be found ever. This is because we
are looking for physical evidences of multiverses using the laws of our
universe as if the other verses have similar physical laws as ours
and as if our universe is bounded (who knows?).
d. Here is my proposal. The infinite verses that we are looking into are
not physical but are embeded in the realm of information of infinite
size. To simplify this realm of information, I am calling it the Mind.
e. We need to go back to our own universe to get evidence of
multiverses, we need to look at quantum mechanics. The quantum
superposition (the case where the cat in Schrodingers cat story is
both alive and dead) represents a set of verses --- the set of all
possibilities. The physical observations in our universe arise when the
superposition collapses (e.g., because of measurement or observation)
--- I will call this one as the reality (but do not be confused because
both quantum superposition and its collapse are real).
f. The set of multiverses are set of all possibilites which is in the realm
of information --- inside the Mind (the mind here is not necessarily
physical in nature (such as 0s and 1s) but can be intangible as the
information in our brain). All possibilities are already there but those
that are observed in our physical universe become part of the
reality.
g. In the creation of reality, natural/physical laws are also formulated.
How? See Fig. 1 for illustration.








Figure 1. At first, there are infinite possibilities. Suppose from the
many possibilities, the red ball was chosen to become part of reality
(part of our universe). Then after some time, the second ball (blue
one) also become part of reality. Note that the creation of the blue
ball should not be a paradox in conflict of the red ball. Then after
some time, the green and yellow balls become part of the reality.
Note again that the creation of the green and yellow balls depends on
the characteristics of the red and blue balls so as not to induce a

paradox. Careful design is needed to come up with a consistent

universe.

h. Our universe has consistent natural/physical laws (which are
represented in Fig. 1 as black lines). Paradoxes only exist in the Mind.
But it does not mean the Mind is not real --- it is not just measured in
the aspect of reality in our universe.
i. The universe was designed by/from the Mind based on all
possibilities. However, in our universe, only one of those possibilities
exists and should follow consistent physical/natural laws so as not to
have paradoxes.
j. As an analogy, let us discuss the mind of a human. The human mind
can be seen to contain a certain realm of information but everyone
would agree that our mind is not the Mind that caused the origin of
the universe (simply because we are not part of the big bang). The
human mind is bound by physical/natural laws based on the
biological structure of the brain (and affected by social factors),
however, the human mind might resemble the Mind that caused the
origin of the universe (what I mean by resemble is that we can have a
hint about the vastness of information). Moreover, the human mind
cannot change physical/natural laws eventhough human mind
contains a set of information (however, our observation could cause
quantum superposition to collapse). I also think that the brain
(tangible) and mind (intangible) are of different states --- they are
connected by some biological processes but the information in the
mind might be of different verse or dimension than our brain (this
can be another topic in the future).

Note that this theory might be thought of as a religious topic. However, it is not my
goal (some may infer god from my discussion, but it is not my intention). I never
discuss any god in here --- I wish not to equate the realm of information (the
Mind) with god. I wish to separate my theory from religion. My crazy simple
hypothesis is philosophical/theoretical at this time, but I believe that we can refine
and extend it and provide some empirical evidences in the future, especially because
I inferred this hypothesis from known theories. We can start by investigating how
quantum information works.