The Nature of the Universe

[James Putnam]

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

 

I think human intelligence is the premier accomplishment of the universe. I see nothing else to compare to it. We are the only known product of the universe that is proceeding to comprehend the universe. We are the supreme, top achievement in terms of individualized intelligence. It is true we are composed of a very insignificant amount of matter compared to the universe. This insignificance does not define our significance.

 

We are an insignificant physical component of the universe, however, I think the properties of intelligence are realized to their fullest extent through us. I do not think size or numbers matter when evaluating intellectual achievement. We are the intellectual vessel that can comprehend all other products of the universe. We have within ourselves the inborn understanding necessary to understand that which the rest of the universe is communicating to us. If we wish to know our roots, then we should look for those roots among the real fundamental properties.

 

There is nothing else known in the universe we can examine of greater intellectual value than ourselves. It may be when we understand the universe, we might conclude that the universe as a whole represents a greater level of intelligence. However, it also may be the case that the height of the intellectual potential of the universe is realized through us. In any case, we are at the top of the intellectual chain so far as we know. So, I suggest we begin at the top, meaning ourselves, and work downward to the fundamental properties in a manner analogous to the method of the mechanical interpretation.

 

At least that is what I think.

 

James

[questor]

it would seem to me that whatever cause effected the creation of the universe is the supeme intelligence. from that source flowed all pysical law and elements and the order of the universe. man has only a slight smattering of knowledge about this creator. it is one thing to understand a tiny bit about this miraculous creation, it is quite another to be the cause and management of it. after we understand thought and life, it will take a quantum leap to understand the method of creation of energy, photons, gravity, universal order, etc. since the human being is composed of the same atoms and sub-atomic particles all over his body, at what level does conscious thought occur in the brain and what chemical reaction causes it? and how does the rest of the body participate?

[James Putnam]

it would seem to me that whatever cause effected the creation of the universe is the supeme intelligence. from that source flowed all pysical law and elements and the order of the universe. man has only a slight smattering of knowledge about this creator. it is one thing to understand a tiny bit about this miraculous creation, it is quite another to be the cause and management of it. after we understand thought and life, it will take a quantum leap to understand the method of creation of energy, photons, gravity, universal order, etc. since the human being is composed of the same atoms and sub-atomic particles all over his body, at what level does conscious thought occur in the brain and what chemical reaction causes it? and how does the rest of the body participate?

 

An original cause called either God or a supreme intelligence is a good way to be dismissed as being unscientific. If this thread went there it would probably be quickly bounced to the Theology Forum. Now, I do not know how the creation of the universe occurred. That puts me in the same position as everyone else. People may believe they know who is or is not responsible. No one knows the science behind what happened. The efforts by some theoretical physicists to use their equations to reveal knowledge about the origin of the universe are misguided. There is nothing that equations can reveal to us that was not a condition predetermined by the original ideas that were used to form the equations. It does not matter if the theorist is unaware of all preset consequences. When they are realized, it only reveals back to the theorist that which they knowingly or unknowingly presupposed to be the case.

 

I feel certain that human beings contain all the intelligence available within the universe necessary to analyze the operation of the universe. It is the only place it can be. As you pointed out, we are composed of the same particles of matter as exist throughout the universe. These particles know what it is they are supposed to do to fulfill their purpose in the universe. Life and intelligence appear to be attached to them. They must also know what it is they are supposed to do to fulfill this purpose. Their properties become more complex as their combinations become more complex. Life and intelligence are the highest level of complexity; however, that complexity results also from the complex relationships that the particles have formed.

 

The groundwork necessary for learning these relationships is continually and increasingly being put before us. It exists in the empirical evidence of science. The meaning of this evidence just needs to be reconsidered from a different point of view. I am not suggesting that this will be easy to accomplish. The mechanical interpretation is a far simpler perspective and it is a great challenge to us. A mechanical answer for a fundamental cause of life and intelligence might be electric charge and its properties. This kind of effort prevents progress. We will have to begin to learn the real, full activities and effects of particles, atoms and molecules.

 

Questions about how or when consciousness becomes significant and recognizable are premature. The current mindset is a mechanical perspective. There is no way to get an answer to these questions from the mechanical interpretation. There is a first step that needs to be taken before trying to use fundamental properties of intelligence to predict the emergence of human consciousness. That step is to establish what are those fundamental properties. This cannot be done without first disproving the mechanical interpretation offered us by theoretical physics. I think afterwards we will find answers. I believe the real nature of the universe will show us continuity from its origin to human consciousness.

 

James

[questor]

James, i think you and i are coming from the same direction, but our paths are different. i have already mentioned the phenomenon of our fellow posters not being able to contemplate a creator of the universe without their minds defaulting to the concept of God. it causes a disconnect in discourse.

if your intent is to disprove mechanical theoretical math, i hope you are a very young man, you are going against the giants. the problem with your theory (and mine) is the fact that no mathematical proof is possible, there are no predictions offered and no way to be proved or disproved the fact that intelligence and life exist is obvious, but the cause borders upon the metaphysical. most scientists cannot accept a cause without a natural explanation, so even if you could disprove some mechanical math, i don't see how that would prove any supernatural cause of life.

[UV-gap]

Has anyone here considered the most OBVIOUS possibility that is also the most unbelievable: the universe is the mind.

 

Physics from all its limitless directions keeps trying to tell us the same message: the observer determines the observations. WHY? Because the observer is the observations: the mind is observing itself, the universe. That is why physics also keeps telling us that the observer of the universe is always at the universe's center (even though time, the past, prevents it from having a center.)

 

The collection of thoughts called ego gets in the way of this OBVIOUS message with the thought: I am this brain-body and not the universe.

 

The separation of the brain-body from the rest of the mind, the universe, is the illusion, hallucination, Maya.

[James Putnam]

if your intent is to disprove mechanical theoretical math, i hope you are a very young man, you are going against the giants. the problem with your theory (and mine) is the fact that no mathematical proof is possible, there are no predictions offered and no way to be proved or disproved the fact that intelligence and life exist is obvious, but the cause borders upon the metaphysical. most scientists cannot accept a cause without a natural explanation, so even if you could disprove some mechanical math, i don't see how that would prove any supernatural cause of life.

 

I am not proving a supernatural cause of life. I am arguing that life and intelligence are natural and cannot be caused by mechanical means. You said "Most scientists cannot accept a cause without a natural explanation." They should not accept a cause without a natural explanation. The difficulty is that their use of the word actually means "theoretical mechanical cause". This is not the meaning of natural. Natural is what is real. Theoretical mechanics is not real.

 

It is true that my intent is to disprove mechanical theory. I am not young; however, I do not need a great deal of time to do this. It is already mostly done. Next to be added is a new presentation of what is entropy. That is why there is a physics theory at my website. It is there to demonstrate that standard theoretical physics is wrong about almost everything. It is itself a mechanical theory, that is because physics in its present state can only be argued from a mechanical perspective. So, I used mechanics to disprove mechanics. However, even if my theory became accepted I would deny that it represents reality. It only represents a mechanical concept. Reality is not mechanical.

 

James

[arkain101]

I understand the ground science has to stand on.. Its solid and sturdy.

 

But it always took a bit of a wander onto the creeky rope bridge to find out new things.

 

Haha, anyway..

 

An original cause called either God or a supreme intelligence is a good way to be dismissed as being unscientific.

 

I think using probability, it is very acurate to state that, the fundamental source of the universe is, when found, going to likely be as magnificent, or better said, as close to a match in comparison to the entire universe as a whole. Whatever is the cause, I am saying, is likely the equal and opposite of all that the universe is.

 

So since the universe is so vastly infinite and mind boggling it may take some pretty similar aspects of thinking to get it.