Nor do they see any evidence of it in their work. In evolutionary theory, such attributes violate not only the operation of chance mutation and the struggle for existence, but our ideas of consecutive time [which is associated with “naive realism”–the belief that things re really as we perceive them to be]. Not that scientifically the concept of a far more flexible time–even a backward flow of time–is all that new. In atomic physics, for example, no special meaning or place is given to any particular moment, and fundamentally the past and future all but merge in the interactions of elementary particles–thus at least approaching simultaneous time. At that level there’s change, or value fulfillment, but no evolution. To my way of thinking, if there’s value fulfillment there’s consciousness, expressed through Conscious Units, or units of consciousness.
But to some degree many scientists outside physics regard such esoteric particle relationships as being of theoretical interest mainly within that discipline; the concepts aren’t seen as posing any threat to biology, zoology, or geology, for instance, nor do they tinker with naive realism. The biological sciences can cling to mechanistic theories of evolution by employing the conservative physics of cause and effect to support their conclusions while being aware, perhaps, of tenets of particle physics. Such “casual analysis” hen proves itself over and over again. I’ve read wherein the theory of evolution is used to prove the theory of evolution.
I find it very interesting, then, to consider that the theory of evolution is a creature of our coarser world of “physical” construction. Our ordinary, chosen sensual perceptions move us forward, within “the time system that the species adopted.” The moment point encompasses the seeming paradox through which consecutive time can be allowed expression within simultaneous time.