Does the universe behave with some intelligence?

[harvey1]

Let's define intelligence as the ability to gather and utilize information in a manner that is algorithmically complex. Let's define an IGUS (information gathering and utilizing system) as a system that is a minimum description of being intelligent.

So, for example, cells are IGUSs and therefore are intelligent in that they can gather information and utilize that information to survive in their environment. Rocks are not IGUSs since they have no known ability to gather information or utilize that information to change their behavior from everything we can tell.

The question is whether the universe has IGUS behavior. In other words, does the universe behave as an IGUS? If so, what is that behavior and how does that behavior demonstrate that information is being gathered and utilized to keep the universe in compliance with a logically consistent nature (etc.)? If not, then please explain how quantum erasure does not demonstrate such information gathering and utilizing behavior. For example, it is my contention that ghost interference can not be understood as anything but IGUS behavior. Please state your reasons and leave your emotional appeals and ad hominem's to other forums.

[Nyril]

Let's define intelligence as the ability to gather and utilize information in a manner that is algorithmically complex.

Rocks are not IGUSs since they have no known ability to gather information or utilize that information to change their behavior from everything we can tell.

Lets define complex before we go any further please. The rock encounters the sun and sees no reason to do anything. The rock encounters water and sees no reason to do anything. The rock is stepped on, and sees no reason to do anything. Basically, it could have billions of algorithms that amount to "sit there and do nothing."

[QED]

The question is whether the universe has IGUS behavior. In other words, does the universe behave as an IGUS? If so, what is that behavior and how does that behavior demonstrate that information is being gathered and utilized to keep the universe in compliance with a logically consistent nature (etc.)? If not, then please explain how quantum erasure does not demonstrate such information gathering and utilizing behavior. For example, it is my contention that ghost interference can not be understood as anything but IGUS behavior. Please state your reasons and leave your emotional appeals and ad hominem's to other forums.

Well, I've already written about what I make of the apparent quantum strangeness, for example in the debate about can there be such a thing as nothing I wrote:

I'd like to point out that the sort of nonlocality demonstrated by entangled states only serves to underline the incompleteness of quantum field theory. For example (and straight off the top of my head!), it might be that from within the geometry of Kaluza-Klein Space-time there exists a common intersection between every point in the three large spatial dimensions. Photons travelling at the speed of light see their journey from one side of the universe to the other as taking no time at all and for them every coordinate would look the same. I only toss this in because there's always a danger that we read something we shouldn't into a partial understanding of a given phenomenon.

You see, I don't hear physicists going around saying "isn't it marvelous -- the universe is a sentient entity". The products of entanglement are revealing an underlying mechanism that isn't fully understood and I think that the reason they don't draw the same conclusion as you is because they all know this to be the case.

[harvey1]

Well, I've already written about what I make of the apparent quantum strangeness, for example in the debate about can there be such a thing as nothing I wrote:

Doesn't explain away complementarity, QED. For example, there's a mathematical foundation to believe that complementarity is required.

You see, I don't hear physicists going around saying "isn't it marvelous -- the universe is a sentient entity". The products of entanglement are revealing an underlying mechanism that isn't fully understood and I think that the reason they don't draw the same conclusion as you is because they all know this to be the case.

Not the case, QED, we do hear physicists saying such things. For example, Menas Kafatos, a well-known and respected quantum physicist has suggested such in a recent book: The Conscious Universe : Parts and Wholes in Physical Reality

[QED]

You see, I don't hear physicists going around saying "isn't it marvelous -- the universe is a sentient entity". The products of entanglement are revealing an underlying mechanism that isn't fully understood and I think that the reason they don't draw the same conclusion as you is because they all know this to be the case.

Not the case, QED, we do hear physicists saying such things. For example, Menas Kafatos, a well-known and respected quantum physicist has suggested such in a recent book: The Conscious Universe : Parts and Wholes in Physical Reality

Of course, I should have written "I don't hear many physicists..." I found a review of that book that seems to give a better outline. While googling for more info. I found this document in which Menas Kafatos gives his opinions on a similar, although slightly less restrained paper written by Chris King.

I suppose it is a little unfair to have said what I did anyway -- as respected physicists are generally very cautious over such publications lest their funding be withdrawn. But what this all comes down to in this debate hasn't changed... the evidence for non-locality has been around for a while and as soon as I read the conclusions from Bells work I internalized the concept of an underlying unity be it in terms of higher-dimensional geometry or whatever, but not being of a spiritual persuasion I simply did not draw the same sort of conclusions as you.

Penfold highlights the role of non-locality in the production of five-fold symmetry of quasi-crystals, and clearly the potential is there to shape other structures. So I am happy to consider its potential in biological evolution and so forth... but why view this apparent organizational principle as something more than that which shapes the particles and forces which comprise these structures?

[harvey1]

Penfold highlights the role of non-locality in the production of five-fold symmetry of quasi-crystals, and clearly the potential is there to shape other structures. So I am happy to consider its potential in biological evolution and so forth... but why view this apparent organizational principle as something more than that which shapes the particles and forces which comprise these structures?

Well, complex systems all exhibit similar organizational patterns, so right off the bat we shouldn't necessarily segregate fundamental forces and particles from other complex systems. Our suspicions should be raised that the universe is one complex system where all the elements of that system are complex systems themselves which relate to the universality of the greater whole.

However, the extreme effectiveness of mathematics in describing the phenomena of the world should make us doubly suspicious that the world is just one large math problem that will eventually prove to relate every event in the universe with every other event, even those events which we might consider to be random. No one does it better at showing off the beauty of mathematics than H.E. Huntley's book, "The Divine Proportion".

[QED]

However, the extreme effectiveness of mathematics in describing the phenomena of the world should make us doubly suspicious that the world is just one large math problem that will eventually prove to relate every event in the universe with every other event, even those events which we might consider to be random.

I agree that the fact that universe appears so amenable to being described by mathematics is highly significant, but I disagree that it proves it to be intelligent or to be the product of intelligence. The significance is that, like everything else we observe in the natural world, it has evolved according to rigid relationships within a cascade of material interactions. It is only when we reach the pinch-point of the singularity that the dice are rolled and the new order emerges. Within this interpretation you should be able to see a problem with the notion of a creator steering events by intervening at a physical level and I often wonder how you reconcile this with your appreciation of the total absence of freedoms that math imposes.

[harvey1]

I agree that the fact that universe appears so amenable to being described by mathematics is highly significant, but I disagree that it proves it to be intelligent or to be the product of intelligence. The significance is that, like everything else we observe in the natural world, it has evolved according to rigid relationships within a cascade of material interactions. It is only when we reach the pinch-point of the singularity that the dice are rolled and the new order emerges.

Dice are rolled? This is what I reject. The dice are free to roll only in as much there is freedom to role. At phase transitions the freedom is infinite in terms of the lower laws that are present, but I think there are higher laws that restrict the freedom of dice. It is these higher laws (God) that are "aware" and restrict the direction of the natural world.

Within this interpretation you should be able to see a problem with the notion of a creator steering events by intervening at a physical level and I often wonder how you reconcile this with your appreciation of the total absence of freedoms that math imposes.

There's not a problem from what I can see. God's will sets limits on the degree of freedom of a system by having lower laws in place that restrict the system at that level. At God's choosing the system is able to develop emergent traits (with new emergent laws for the newly emergent system) by undergoing criticality. At criticality the system becomes unpredictable in terms of what that new set of emergent features will be, however this is when "Jesus carries us" to use the illustration of a well-known poem when we look back on our life (i.e., at the footprints in the sand) and see only one set of footprints. That's the time (according to the poem) when Jesus carried us.

As the new emergent features take hold, the new emergent laws (i.e., God's lower self) maintain the degrees of freedom for that new system. At each juncture in evolution where phase transitions and evolutionary development continue to mount, more systems undergo more unification which increases the diversity. For example, the evolution of the cell perhaps took other competing organisms and incorporated those organisms in the single cell. This, of course, leads to greater diversity since now new life forms having cells can proliferate in ways unimaginable prior to the emergence of cells.

Scripturally speaking, there's a new phase transition that humans will undergo, and the criticality is the time of the end (in biblical terms). It will be accompanied by a great unification of humanity and spiritual-minded epoch. The return of Christ. At the end of the universe there is yet one last criticality, and that is when there will be a new heavens and new earth. Or, as Paul said, "God will be all in all."

[Curious]

I agree that the fact that universe appears so amenable to being described by mathematics is highly significant, but I disagree that it proves it to be intelligent or to be the product of intelligence. The significance is that, like everything else we observe in the natural world, it has evolved according to rigid relationships within a cascade of material interactions...

I agree that this is significant. 2+2=4 is correct in maths because 2+2 is observed to equal 4. Mathematics is constructed to agree with the results, not the other way around. If a thing replicates or divides or contracts or expands it will do so in a certain way. If the way is different then so will the mathematics that describe it be different. If 2+2 was observable as 6, then 2+2=6 would be correct. However the universe was created, people would eventually create a method that would reflect this and possibly call this method mathematics. Your cascade explanation is an extremely good point and bang on the money.

[harvey1]

I agree that this is significant. 2+2=4 is correct in maths because 2+2 is observed to equal 4. Mathematics is constructed to agree with the results, not the other way around.

So, you don't think that there's such a thing as non-applied mathematics?

If a thing replicates or divides or contracts or expands it will do so in a certain way. If the way is different then so will the mathematics that describe it be different. If 2+2 was observable as 6, then 2+2=6 would be correct.

It is possible to see that 2+2=6 in the natural world, however you don't see mathematics following that logic. For example, particle accelerators observe strange addition all the time. You might have collisions that have four types of particles and see six types of particles as a result.

However the universe was created, people would eventually create a method that would reflect this and possibly call this method mathematics. Your cascade explanation is an extremely good point and bang on the money.

It's impracticle to make this claim since we cannot view other universes. However, mathematics is based on a handful of simple statements that would be very difficult to claim that the universe is exactly like those axioms. Yet physics follows mathematical theory very closely. If the universe is acting out mathematically to the point of such absurdity that we can construct Calabi-Yau spaces (string theory) from axioms largely discovered over the last two thousand years, then this requires explanation on the part of those who say that mathematics is solely invented.