MESSAGE FROM LYNDON LAROUCHE
The Scientific Basis for Life on Mars
August 12, 1996
I respond to a query forwarded to me from the Aug. 10
session of the
EIR's regular, Leesburg [Virginia] Saturday afternoon
To lighten the burden of this reply, I refer readers to the
fact that this is a matter which pervades all my scientific work.
For example, some former students will recall the argument for
pervasiveness of life in the universe, which I featured as a
pedagogical point within the one-semester course in economics
during the 1972 Spring semester at Columbia University campus.
Those, and others, will recall from relevant publications, that
the core of my original discoveries in physical economy is
embodied in those considerations.
The question, whether we ought to have anticipated a
necessary basis for presuming life to have existed on Mars at
some time, can be answered only by first taking into account the
most profound, and most frequently overlooked principle upon
which the authority of all fundamental scientific knowledge
depends. Only after those prerequisites are taken into account,
by both questioners and respondent, can a competent answer be
The shame of virtually all taught science today, is that it
ignores the most crucial question posed by even the mere notion
of scientific principle. The proper answer to the question,
"What is human knowledge?" in physical science, as otherwise, is
subsumed under a scrutiny of those cognitive processes upon which
all knowledge depends. In light of that often-ignored matter of
scientific rigor, the science of physical economy stands as the
highest-ranking branch of physical science. That is first of the
prerequisite points to be considered.
- Physical economy sets the question of the possibility of
continued existence of the human species, against that upon which
the human species acts, and which reacts to the human species'
activity, the universe.
- The unique distinction of human existence on this planet, is
that it depends upon those willful increases in potential
relative population-density, which are effected through the
instrumentality of those mental-creative processes of cognition
which empiricism and materialism either deny, axiomatically, to
exist, or, as Immanuel Kant did, pronounce "unknowable" by
- Physical economy shows that the characteristic of valid
discoveries of principle employed to alter human behavior, is a
"not-entropic" growth of the human potential relative population-density,
correlated with improvements in demographic
characteristics of the relevant entire population, and with
increase of the physical standard of living and physical
productivity of the society, per capita of labor force, per
household, and per square kilometer of relevant surface area of
[As set forth in the referenced Columbia semester: This
not-entropic function is reflected in terms of three constraints:
- That the ratio of "free energy" to "energy of the system" of the
physical economy as a whole, must not be negative, and must not
- that the ration of "energy of the system," per capita
of available labor-force, per household, and per square kilometer
of relevant surface-area, must increase;
- that progress in
these terms is made obligatory by the factor of "technological
- That is to say, that the universe rewards humanity's valid
acts of discovery of universal principle, with "not-entropic"
impulses in the increase of mankind's potential relative
- Thus, mankind's knowledge of the universe is
characteristically "not-entropic," a knowledge which demonstrates
the universe as a whole to be characteristically "not-entropic."
[e.g., the universe is so pre-designed, that it is prone to obey
the will of man whenever that will reflects the
creative-cognitive potential of the individual human mind. Hence, the
universe is prone, by manifest pre-design, to "obey" not-entropy.]
- This is made known to mankind through the Socratic method of
cognition first rigorously defined by Plato; therefore, that
process of cognition is characteristically "not-entropic."
- The mathematical meaning of this "not-entropy," is clarified
by the discovery presented by
Bernhard Riemann's 1854
habilitation dissertation, where a clear view of the relationship
among cognition, mathematics, and not-entropy was first provided.
Essentially, to understand cognition, we must recognize that
science is not a product of mathematics, but of frequent
departures from mathematics, into the domain of experimental
physics. Experimental physics rudely refutes and corrects the
stubborn idiocies of existing mathematics (and merely
mathematical physics) by aid of measurable demonstrations of a
new physical, or equivalent principle, enabling us to construct a
new, functionally superior quality of mathematical physics, Each
such step of progress in human knowledge, has the mathematical
characteristic of an absolute mathematical discontinuity.
It should be noted that experimental physics effects
progress to two distinct effects. It may merely guide us to
eradicate nonsense from knowledge; or, it may find the relevant
error in existing belief to err only in respect to inadequacy, in
that it has to discover some additional principle, if it is to
progress beyond the bounds of its present pragmatic competencies.
It is the second case, upon which Riemann's habilitation
dissertation, like his notion of a Riemann Surface, is focussed.
In this second case, experimental proof, by measurement, of a new
physical principle, is to be added to existing mathematical
knowledge as it were a new dimension of a physical space-time
This obliges us to review all presently acquired knowledge
from this vantage-point in physical space-time geometries. In
this approach, we are impelled to divide all relatively valid
discoveries into two general classes:
- discoveries of new
theorems of an established physical space-time geometry
(established theorem-lattice), and,
- discoveries of new
dimensions (i.e., any one set axioms, postulates, definitions,
constituting an hypothesis, is transformed into a new hypothesis
by the discovery of a new principle serving as an axiom of the
The latter are distinguished as "new physical
principles" (or, equivalent notions). Each such principle is
treated as a "dimension" of an n-dimensional physical-space-time
manifold, and with an associated, experimentally measurable
physical space-time curvature.
The notion of the progress, through experimental physics, or
analogous means, from a relatively valid physical space-time
geometry (hypothesis) of "n dimensions," to a superior one
(hypothesis) of "n+1 dimensions," is the general definition of
"not-entropy" employable for a topological form of mathematical
physics (which excludes the Grassmann-Weyl presumption of the
existence of linearity in the very small).
- Although experimental physics, or comparable measurement,
may show us, that a discovered theorem or hypothesis increases
the per capita power of action locally, that is not proof, in
and of itself, that such local advantage corresponds to a net
gain for humanity as a whole. Thus, local advantage must be
viewed as but a phase-space within a larger geometry of society
as a whole, within a still larger geometry of mankind as a whole.
Thus, the principle of increase of potential relative population-density,
through the not-entropic fruits of individual's
cognition, is the highest authority in experimental physics.
Physics & Life
All human knowledge may be mapped by simple table of three
columns and three rows. The columns are "astrophysics,"
"macrophysics," and "microphysics." The rows are, from lowest to
- Ostensibly non-living processes;
- Ostensibly non-cognitive, living processes; and,
- Cognitive processes.
All of the elements of knowledge so located interact functionally.
Another table describes, roughly but usefully, the empirical
refinement of knowledge. Knowledge is otherwise ordered from
lower linear, to higher non-linear, and both these according to
extremes of frequency of oscillation reached. Thus we drive
inquiry and action into the extremes of scale, and in refinement
of contrast of linear to non-linear.
All such considerations are properly subsumed under the
certainty, that not-entropy is the underlying characteristic
(e.g., higher hypothesis) of the universe as an integrated whole.
The foregoing three sets of experimental considerations,
combined, present us with a higher hypothesis. It is a "relative
theorem" (e.g., hypothesis) of this higher hypothesis, that the
principle of life is pervasive throughout the universe, and that
life must necessarily manifest its efficient presence as a
principle of the universe, wherever appropriate local phase-space
Thus, if we reject the mechanistic, Darwinian presumptions,
in favor of the considerations summarized thus far here, it
- That prior to the recent NASA report, the compelling
investigative presumption had to have been, that recognizable
life-forms must have existed actively on Mars during some
interval of time, possibly including the present.
- If three stated or otherwise implicit assumptions of the
given NASA report are solidly confirmed, then we have the fact of
existence of active forms of life on Mars during some extended
period of time, prior to, and possibly including the present.
These three,"nested" presumptions are:
- That the meteorite came
- That there are life forms contained within the
- That the life-forms are not located there
through "contamination" by environments other than those of Mars.
- If those presumptions are confirmed, we are confronted with
two experimental propositions:
- What is the range of conditions
on Mars within which what types of life-forms are "successfully"
- What are the conditions under which a succession
of life-forms is originated on Mars--or, elsewhere, such as
- One of the subsumed special sets of questions references the
transformation in the conditions of the Earth's surface, from a
reducing to an oxidizing characteristic. A related, "nested"
question, is: How does that consideration apply to the pre-history
of Mars, as compared with relevant datings for Earth?
- That set of questions prompts our examination of the strong,
if currently less popular presumption, that the generation of the
periodic table of elements, of which the Solar System's planets
and moons are ostensibly composed, was effected, during a period
a much-faster rotating Sun was shedding rotation, under
conditions of coherently ordered fusion within a superheated disk
of expelled solar matter orbitting the Sun (as our present image
of gravitational fusion within the Sun could not account for that
periodic table). The Kepler phase-shift, between the inner and
outer planets, has greatly increased significance for us, if a
second inner planet (the only likely one, excepting the exploded
planet now represented by the asteroids) is shown to have
developed living forms. In such a case, our way of looking
outward, at the universe in general, must be significantly
shifted, to include a much more interesting history (and
prospective future) for our Sun, than has been common lately.
- All of this must be situated in a commitment to several
- Extend the frontiers of experimental physics,
on both the astrophysical and microphysical frontiers, especially
into the sub-nuclear domain, where "strong forces" prevail;
- Consider the proposition, that the natural tendency in a universe
defined as our table defines science, is for the composition of
the universe to shift upward, not only from a less-organized, to
a more highly-organized form, but, generally, from the
"inorganic" toward the "cognitive" form;
- That the curvature of
physical space-time has changed much over the "history" of the
universe, is continuing to change, and might be willfully
altered, ultimately, in the manner a Riemann Surface function
suggests, by intervention of mankind.
- That the investigation of such matters, requires the
cleansing of science of both the incapacitating pagan-religious
mythology, of "linearity in the very small," and, also, of
kindred types of empiricist's mechanistic mumbo-jumbo, imported
into the mathematics-physics classroom and textbook from the
dionysiac rites of the Hobbesian market-place.