The Nature of the Universe

[thordaddy]

The nature of intelligence is first survival and then acceleration (direction). It realizes its true nature by avoiding misdirection (explicitly false instructions) and thus evolves through specific mutations and artificial selection.

[thordaddy]

It seems that in order to reach finality on the origins we must reach finality on the evolution of intelligence. To see the cause we will have to see the effect (intelligence) in its ENTIRETY. Only when intelligence evolves (avoids misdirection) to its maximum expression (an absence of misdirection) will it have any chance of telling us how it began and WHY. Does this mean Intelligence will continue to evolve by specific mutation and artificial selection or will Intelligence recognize that humans, being the most successful expression of its nature, can embark on a program of perfect mutation and perfect selection?

[thordaddy]

Just want to say HI and how interesting this thread is. I did read all 10 pages of posting and hope I can just throw some ideas around.

 

The nature of intelligence is its maximum expression. Intelligence will reach its maximum expression when completely absent of misdirection ie, random mutations and "natural selection" (imperfect evolution/false instruction). It will then necessarily find "direction" in specific mutations and artificial selection (perfect evolution). Then Intelligence finds itself in a moral quandary. Is its maximum expression (The One Effect) worth destroying its most successful experiment in order to know it all (The Cause, origin) AND BE recognized for it?

 

"I am Intelligence, hear me roar!"

[ldsoftwaresteve]

James Putnam:

Intelligence is not a force. Force is not natural. It is a mechanical invention of the mind. I cannot accomplish anything by simply declaring this to be true. The mechanical interpretation of the universe is far too strong a belief. So, there is a first step that is necessary. It is to prove that theoretical physics is wrong about almost everything. This is done by developing a unified mechanical theory that outperforms standard theory. After this it is necessary to demonstrate that no mechanical theory can account for life and intelligence. Both of these can be done. Once the belief that mechanics defines what is natural is disposed of, we can begin to finally investigate the evolution of life and intelligence. Where is the evidence that intelligence is not natural? We know it exists. It is the only thing that we can know exists for certain. Mechanics cannot account for it. Only intelligence can account for intelligence.

Have I said before that I like this idea? Well, I do. I like your approach James and wish you the best in this endeavor. Mark McCutcheon's book, "The Final Theory" also says that 'force' doesn't exist. That book also posits a single event that causes all properties of the universe. His event is expansion at the atomic level.

With him, though, he doesn't buy 'the big bang' or at least not as currently stated (assuming my understanding is correct). Instead, whatever the beginning was, the expansion rate was greater than it is today. The rate of expansion has changed and as material spread throughout the universe the rate of expansion changed, became less, and the particles started having properties, were able to join, combine, create galaxies, and behave according to the 'laws' they currently exhibit. I suppose the 'time' of pure entropy would be the 'time' before the current physical laws became operational.

He does not deal with life, however. You do. To me, it seems that life exists because it must and something about existence creates life from properties of existence that are 'lifelike'. All life, it seems, perceives something at some level. I would not be surprised to find out that the universe 'needs' to be perceived. After all, a universe without life would be a universe without meaning.

Your statement,

So, there is a first step that is necessary. It is to prove that theoretical physics is wrong about almost everything. This is done by developing a unified mechanical theory that outperforms standard theory. After this it is necessary to demonstrate that no mechanical theory can account for life and intelligence.

I suspect will turn out to be quite perceptive.

I wish you the best.

[questor]

James, if we are not to call it a force, then what shall we call it? we must have a name for discourse.

from your post, i gather you surmise intelligence existed before the BB, and was responsible for it. i would say that human intelligence would weigh quite lightly against the ponderance of information needed to create the universe.

if there was a creator of this transcendence ,what purpose would be served by the presence of man?

man needs neural wiring for thought, a creator needs nothing. man has some intelligence and is able to act upon information, but his role in the universe

seems totally unimportant. i would call man's capability thought rather than intelligence.

you seem to be quite intelligent, i hope you are not tilting at windmills.

[James Putnam]

Thank you for your remarks Steve.

To me, it seems that life exists because it must and something about existence creates life from properties of existence that are 'lifelike'. All life, it seems, perceives something at some level. I would not be surprised to find out that the universe 'needs' to be perceived. After all, a universe without life would be a universe without meaning.

I agree with this statement. I have written about this and tried to develop the case for it. Its a lengthy ongoing effort. However, I think you stated the premise succinctly.

 

James

[thordaddy]

James,

 

I think an ode to a feminist slogan is in order.

 

"I am Intelligence, hear me roar."

 

The nature of intelligence seeks maximum expression. Its maximum expression is the entirety of the One Effect, maximum intelligence. It is aware but seeks an awareness of. Only the complete recognition of this One Effect can it hope to understand the its Cause. This One Effect births One Cause and helps define its evolution/design/goal. This evolution is called direction (maximum intelligence maximally expressed) and its defined by the absence of misdirection (false instruction/useless information/false expression).

[James Putnam]

James, if we are not to call it a force, then what shall we call it? we must have a name for discourse.

You have a point. The fundamental properties of life and intelligence are as yet unknown. They are not even looked for. Mechanical force, customarily referred to simply as force, has been their theoretical substitute. Mechanical force is not the answer. I imagine that we will someday talk about the properties of the universe in terms similar to our present terminology for discussing intelligence. In the meantime, I refer to them as the fundamental properties of intelligence. I guess if the phrase intelligent force is preferred that it probably doesn't really matter. I think the point to keep in mind is that critics press for causes. The irony is that no one, regardless of their theory or belief, has ever scientifically identified causes. The nature of cause is scientifically unknown. This is true in spite of attempts to give names to imagined causes. Not a one of them is real. Even the appearance of charge in Coulomb's law is artificial. At least that is what I say in this short message. I can't argue the proofs here.

from your post, i gather you surmise intelligence existed before the BB, and was responsible for it. i would say that human intelligence would weigh quite lightly against the ponderance of information needed to create the universe.

I agree. When pressed to speculate I also say that any cause of the universe would have to represent far greator intelligence than what is included in the universe. I say this because the universe does not seem to have the ability to change its nature. A cause for its beginning would have to have this ability.

if there was a creator of this transcendence ,what purpose would be served by the presence of man

man needs neural wiring for thought, a creator needs nothing. man has some intelligence and is able to act upon information, but his role in the universe

seems totally unimportant.

The kind of answer I presently offer for consideration is this: The universe has fundamental properties of intelligence. They contain the potential for intelligent life, but they by themselves are not the realization of it. At this level the universe looks very much like it is mechanical. It is when higher and higher levels of intelligence are being realized that the true nature of the universe begins to clearly reveal itself. I do not imagine that the end result of this evolution could be a single highly intelligent universe. The non religious goal appears to me to be a transformation from low level generalized intelligent properties into human intelligence on an individual level. This is the means by which the universe may comprehend itself.

i would call man's capability thought rather than intelligence.

We receive all of our information via always changing, mixed storms of photons arriving at the speed of light, that can do nothing on that level except indicate a particle of matter has changed its velocity. There is no meaning there unless we already know how to find meaning. We are born with the intelligence necessary to interpret the universe.

you seem to be quite intelligent, i hope you are not tilting at windmills.

Thank you. What I said above can be viewed as opinion. It may or may not be interesting to others. What will be interesting to all is if physics theory is wrong. That is why physics theory comes first. If physics theory falls, that is not tilting at a windmill. Anyway we shall see. Thank you for your message.

 

James

[James Putnam]

i recommend going to http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm, you can listen to it or get a printable verson. it's a long read but i found it very informitive.

Hi dad2bkm,

 

This is the title description given:

 

Where Did The Universe Come From?

New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

A Seminal Presentation by Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, given in South Barrington, Illinois, April 16, 1994

 

 

I listened to it. He believes in theoretical physics. He argues the case for; fine tuning of the universe, the uniqueness of the earth, and for Biblical correctness. He offers his view of the meaning of scripture in Genesis. I interpret him as being an old earth Creationist. What makes him different from others is that he is a physicist.

 

James

[James Putnam]

Just want to say HI and how interesting this thread is. I did read all 10 pages of posting and hope I can just throw some ideas around.

 

The nature of intelligence is its maximum expression. Intelligence will reach its maximum expression when completely absent of misdirection ie, random mutations and "natural selection" (imperfect evolution/false instruction). It will then necessarily find "direction" in specific mutations and artificial selection (perfect evolution). Then Intelligence finds itself in a moral quandary. Is its maximum expression (The One Effect) worth destroying its most successful experiment in order to know it all (The Cause, origin) AND BE recognized for it?

 

"I am Intelligence, hear me roar!"

 

Hi thordaddy,

 

I am glad you find this thread interesting. Your opinion is welcome. I do have difficulty at times following your train of thought. Perhaps a little more development and explanation will help.

 

James

[dad2bkmj]

Hi dad2bkm,

 

This is the title description given:

 

Where Did The Universe Come From?

New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

A Seminal Presentation by Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross, given in South Barrington, Illinois, April 16, 1994

 

 

I listened to it. He believes in theoretical physics. He argues the case for; fine tuning of the universe, the uniqueness of the earth, and for Biblical correctness. He offers his view of the meaning of scripture in Genesis. I interpret him as being an old earth Creationist. What makes him different from others is that he is a physicist.

 

James

thank you for listening to it. now, just so that you know, i'm not a physicist but i am a christian, i also believe in all the scientific discoveries that have been made. which of course is confusing to say the least. i'm not on that just takes what the bible sayes, so i started doing research on the internet, and come across that. it fit alot of what i was thinking. you know, bits and pieces of science i've made connections to the bible in my mind. the big bang for instance, god created the heavens and the earth and said let there be light, what do you get with a big bang but light and the heavens and the earth. god filled the sea with life, and filled the sky with birds, science sayes life started in the waters, some people think the dinosours are related to modern birds. science sayes the land started as a supercontanent, god colleced the water into one place and made land, which to me sounds like one land mass. things like that. but i would really like to know what you thought about dr. ross's findings. again thank you for listening to it.

[ughaibu]

James Putnam:

Is your suggestion that the universe is composed of intelligence, existing from the level of it's elemental components to organised aggregates as represented by, inter alia, what we know as 'life'?

[James Putnam]

Hi ughaibu,

 

James Putnam:

Is your suggestion that the universe is composed of intelligence, existing from the level of it's elemental components to organised aggregates as represented by, inter alia, what we know as 'life'?

 

Yes, so long as we might agree on the scope of the intelligence involved. Intelligence should be understood in its fullest sense. It should not be limited to our human perspective of intelligence. I do not know what is its fullest sense. Finding the meaning of its 'fullest sense' is the task that science should pursue. I think it should begin with human intelligence and work from the top down.

 

This is analogous to what has occurred in the mechanical interpretation of the universe. It might be the case that as we move closer and closer to the fundamental level, we may become lost in its complexity. I don't think so, but I don't know. I do think it should be able to take us at least as far as has mechanical theory. I expect it will take us further and greatly broaden our understanding along the way. Mechanics is not only artificial, it is also a very narrow perspective.

 

There are molecules that direct the design of life. That life and intelligence appear to be attached to some of these molecules is due to causes beyond the descriptive ability and completely absent from the mechanical theories of present day science. I think it is necessary to move beyond the mechanics of motion and search for reasons why molecules acquire purpose. It is the purpose of our molecules to raise life and intelligence to the level necessary to achieve human awareness. What is the unknown property of our molecules that can produce such great purpose?

 

At this point I will repeat something I said in a recent post. The things I have said here can be taken as opinion. They may be interesting to some and not of interest to others. However, if mechanics in the form of theoretical physics really is artificial, that will prove interesting for all. It will also be liberating.

 

James

[James Putnam]

thank you for listening to it. now, just so that you know, i'm not a physicist but i am a christian, i also believe in all the scientific discoveries that have been made. which of course is confusing to say the least. i'm not on that just takes what the bible sayes, so i started doing research on the internet, and come across that. it fit alot of what i was thinking. you know, bits and pieces of science i've made connections to the bible in my mind. the big bang for instance, god created the heavens and the earth and said let there be light, what do you get with a big bang but light and the heavens and the earth. god filled the sea with life, and filled the sky with birds, science sayes life started in the waters, some people think the dinosours are related to modern birds. science sayes the land started as a supercontanent, god colleced the water into one place and made land, which to me sounds like one land mass. things like that. but i would really like to know what you thought about dr. ross's findings. again thank you for listening to it.

 

I will answer with respect to his scientific findings. He thinks the earth is necessarily unique. He gives scientific reasons for believing this. I wouldn't want to have to go up against an astrophysicist at this time. He has to know more than myself. However, I feel his conclusions may be strongly influenced by his religious belief. It seems to me that the fact that the earth exists at all is evidence that it can occur many times over throughout the universe.

 

The difference between him and I on this point may simply be that I am not seeing evidence that convinces me of a need for a special miracle. I think everything that has occurred in the universe has resulted in an orderly fashion from whatever properties were present in the beginning of the universe. Anyway, I think that is the basis upon which the universe should be studied scientifically.

 

The universe is fine tuned. Even though that is accepted, it has not been enough by itself to win the debate for Creationism. While I think multiple universe types of answers to fine tuning are irrelevent, I do see fine tuning as evidence of a specific end purpose toward which the evolution of the universe has been directed. I do not try to define the origin of this purpose, I simply see it as part of the universe. It is the nature of the universe from the perspective within the universe that I think science rightfully should investigate.

 

With regard to your thoughts, as well as his, about correlating the nature of the universe with Biblical interpretation, that discussion must be conducted within the Theology Forum. You will have to introduce it there. I will not be going there. I am not trying to prove or argue anything about the Bible. I am presently doing some theoretical work and essay writing about entropy. I do appreciate your interest about the science involved, and your participation here.

 

James

[UV-gap]

the universe is not in the mind

because the universe is the mind

as is everything else imaginable.

 

It is the Supreme Comedy in which the mind is always dreaming that it is awake... and so the universe in our sleep-dreams is no more, or less, real than is the exact SAME universe when the mind dreams that it wakes up each morning.

 

 

Physics tells us this exact same story. But it is only obvious when the absolute is the quantum-gap and not the particles that are the thoughts that work like wild-gooses for egos/intellects to chase to keep the Comedy called mind, life, supreme.

[ughaibu]

Doesn't this imply an overall terrestrial intelligence of which the human is a component rather than an independent "at the top"?

[dad2bkmj]

I will answer with respect to his scientific findings. He thinks the earth is necessarily unique. He gives scientific reasons for believing this. I wouldn't want to have to go up against an astrophysicist at this time. He has to know more than myself. However, I feel his conclusions may be strongly influenced by his religious belief. It seems to me that the fact that the earth exists at all is evidence that it can occur many times over throughout the universe.

 

The difference between him and I on this point may simply be that I am not seeing evidence that convinces me of a need for a special miracle. I think everything that has occurred in the universe has resulted in an orderly fashion from whatever properties were present in the beginning of the universe. Anyway, I think that is the basis upon which the universe should be studied scientifically.

 

The universe is fine tuned. Even though that is accepted, it has not been enough by itself to win the debate for Creationism. While I think multiple universe types of answers to fine tuning are irrelevent, I do see fine tuning as evidence of a specific end purpose toward which the evolution of the universe has been directed. I do not try to define the origin of this purpose, I simply see it as part of the universe. It is the nature of the universe from the perspective within the universe that I think science rightfully should investigate.

 

With regard to your thoughts, as well as his, about correlating the nature of the universe with Biblical interpretation, that discussion must be conducted within the Theology Forum. You will have to introduce it there. I will not be going there. I am not trying to prove or argue anything about the Bible. I am presently doing some theoretical work and essay writing about entropy. I do appreciate your interest about the science involved, and your participation here.

 

James

i thank you for your input, and i respect you not wanting to go into a theology discussion. thanks again, i will keep watching the tread, and if i feel i can add to the discussion i will.