Capability of "Nature"/Necessity of Creativity

[Etritonakin]

Someone recently advised me to not underestimate that of which nature was capable.
Referenced from the singularity/big bang, nature from that point is very capable due to relatively complex/specific arrangement.
However, how nature became capable has not been explained.
As present nature once did not exist as such, its present configuration cannot be most-basic nature.

If any material or force is considered, it is true that there is an extreme difference between that which anything will do based on its basic nature at any point and that which can be accomplished with it by a creative intelligence.
In other words, nature is actually not very capable until it becomes capable by becoming self-aware, knowledgeable and creative.

If very complex and interactive things (wood... pile vs bridge, metal... blob vs muscle car, stone... door stop vs cathedral) cannot become much else comparatively in the absence of creativity NOW -should we expect their very simple components to be very capable?

Does not simplicity allow for all things only generally -and complexity specifically?

More-basic things have more-basic properties -so less specific capability. Why would the most basic itself (pre-universe) be very capable -and the very complex not very capable?

Though it may seem counterintuitive, far less would be required for the pre-universe development of self-awareness and creativity than for a universe prior to such! Any simple interaction is simple awareness and can be the basis of logical processing -and there would be far less of which to be aware early on! Then the simple would have the capability of knowledgeably specifying -therefore of becoming specific! It would require little more than basic logic/increasingly complex interaction -and then gaining a perspective -essentially looking into a simple mirror at some point.

Both the universe and creativity have always been generally possible -but what would make each specifically possible -and in what order?
From our perspective, it seems that there was a singularity and big bang, then the entire extremely-complex universe developed, then self-awareness and creativity developed -but that is actually reverse logical order!
How could the nearest possible things to nothing have any specific capability?
Why would the very complex and capable human mind struggle to reverse engineer that which was produced without any specific capability at all? How is nothing more capable than a mind? Why would a stirring pool of the cosmic equivalent of ones and zeroes (far less complex than a blob or pile of whatever) -become a universe, elements, forces, stars, planets, DNA, physical life.... before developing any logical processing ability?

"Nature" is only capable of running its course -not altering its course -until it first develops capability -which is its natural course.
Even at this moment -regardless of what is considered, the difference between very-basically capable and very capable is the development of awareness -a mind -a self. That IS capability.

 

[Nakosis]

Someone recently advised me to not underestimate that of which nature was capable.
Referenced from the singularity/big bang, nature from that point is very capable due to relatively complex/specific arrangement.
However, how nature became capable has not been explained.
As present nature once did not exist as such, its present configuration cannot be most-basic nature.

If any material or force is considered, it is true that there is an extreme difference between that which anything will do based on its basic nature at any point and that which can be accomplished with it by a creative intelligence.
In other words, nature is actually not very capable until it becomes capable by becoming self-aware, knowledgeable and creative.

If very complex and interactive things (wood... pile vs bridge, metal... blob vs muscle car, stone... door stop vs cathedral) cannot become much else comparatively in the absence of creativity NOW -should we expect their very simple components to be very capable?

Does not simplicity allow for all things only generally -and complexity specifically?

More-basic things have more-basic properties -so less specific capability. Why would the most basic itself (pre-universe) be very capable -and the very complex not very capable?

Though it may seem counterintuitive, far less would be required for the pre-universe development of self-awareness and creativity than for a universe prior to such! Any simple interaction is simple awareness and can be the basis of logical processing -and there would be far less of which to be aware early on! Then the simple would have the capability of knowledgeably specifying -therefore of becoming specific! It would require little more than basic logic/increasingly complex interaction -and then gaining a perspective -essentially looking into a simple mirror at some point.

Both the universe and creativity have always been generally possible -but what would make each specifically possible -and in what order?
From our perspective, it seems that there was a singularity and big bang, then the entire extremely-complex universe developed, then self-awareness and creativity developed -but that is actually reverse logical order!
How could the nearest possible things to nothing have any specific capability?
Why would the very complex and capable human mind struggle to reverse engineer that which was produced without any specific capability at all? How is nothing more capable than a mind? Why would a stirring pool of the cosmic equivalent of ones and zeroes (far less complex than a blob or pile of whatever) -become a universe, elements, forces, stars, planets, DNA, physical life.... before developing any logical processing ability?

Don't you have the same problem explaining how this creative intelligence came to be?

Where did it come from, how was it developed? You claim the right order is the chicken before the egg. Ok, where did the chicken come from?

Sure it may be difficult to explain from the bid bang to human intelligence but, many parts have been explained, even though their maybe gaps in the explanation. Where is your explanation of how this creative intelligence came to exist?

 

[Etritonakin]

Don't you have the same problem explaining how this creative intelligence came to be?

Where did it come from, how was it developed? You claim the right order is the chicken before the egg. Ok, where did the chicken come from?

Sure it may be difficult to explain from the bid bang to human intelligence but, many parts have been explained, even though their maybe gaps in the explanation. Where is your explanation of how this creative intelligence came to exist?

I don't believe it difficult at all to explain human or similar intelligence from the big bang -as the complex and interactive elements which the singularity became specifically lend themselves perfectly to the self-assembly of DNA, etc.

From my post....
"Though it may seem counterintuitive, far less would be required for the pre-universe development of self-awareness and creativity than for a universe prior to such! Any simple interaction is simple awareness and can be the basis of logical processing -and there would be far less of which to be aware early on! Then the simple would have the capability of knowledgeably specifying -therefore of becoming specific! It would require little more than basic logic/increasingly complex interaction -and then gaining a perspective -essentially looking into a simple mirror at some point."

Very simple interactions in rather simple arrangements are capable of performing the role of logic gates. At our level, such allow for the capabilities of computers. Initially, we employed transistors made of semiconductors made of atoms -but we are now employing the principle of which I speak with the development of quantum computers -similar function -different level. Semiconductors are not a requirement -nor are atoms (for the actual computing -though some sort of interface is required for us to interact from our level).

So -basic interactions and something to drive increased complexity are the basic requirements.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't believe it difficult at all to explain human or similar intelligence from the big bang -as the complex and interactive elements which the singularity became specifically lend themselves perfectly to the self-assembly of DNA, etc.

From my post....
"Though it may seem counterintuitive, far less would be required for the pre-universe development of self-awareness and creativity than for a universe prior to such! Any simple interaction is simple awareness and can be the basis of logical processing -and there would be far less of which to be aware early on! Then the simple would have the capability of knowledgeably specifying -therefore of becoming specific! It would require little more than basic logic/increasingly complex interaction -and then gaining a perspective -essentially looking into a simple mirror at some point."

Very simple interactions in rather simple arrangements are capable of performing the role of logic gates. At our level, such allow for the capabilities of computers. Initially, we employed transistors made of semiconductors made of atoms -but we are now employing the principle of which I speak with the development of quantum computers -similar function -different level. Semiconductors are not a requirement -nor are atoms (for the actual computing -though some sort of interface is required for us to interact from our level).

So -basic interactions and something to drive increased complexity are the basic requirements.

Then my answer would be the same. Simple interactions and the 4 natural forces that are known in the universe as drivers.
Those being gravitational, electromagnetic. weak and strong nuclear forces.
This interaction would start out simple and become more complex over time.

You explanation though "any simple interaction is simple awareness" Not quite sure how this is so but if it is good for your explanation I suppose it works as well for mine.

 

[Valjean]

Someone recently advised me to not underestimate that of which nature was capable.
Referenced from the singularity/big bang, nature from that point is very capable due to relatively complex/specific arrangement.
However, how nature became capable has not been explained.

...and it's an active area of cosmological study. Didn't we just spend five or ten billion on a new telescope to study this sort of thing?

Creative intelligence does not explain "how," either. Not understanding something is not evidence for any alternative explanations, especially speculative, unevidenced ones.

If any material or force is considered, it is true that there is an extreme difference between that which anything will do based on its basic nature at any point and that which can be accomplished with it by a creative intelligence.

Creative intelligence is an agent, not a mechanism. It doesn't explain anything.

In other words, nature is actually not very capable until it becomes capable by becoming self-aware, knowledgeable and creative.

But nature is very capable, all by itself. Why would it have to become self-aware? What new capabilities would this confer? What evidence is there for this new, creative agent?

If very complex and interactive things (wood... pile vs bridge, metal... blob vs muscle car, stone... door stop vs cathedral) cannot become much else comparatively in the absence of creativity NOW -should we expect their very simple components to be very capable?

Ordinary, known physics is capable of infinite complexity. I don't see any need for, or evidence for, any additional agency.
This sounds like an argument from personal incredulity.

More-basic things have more-basic properties -so less specific capability. Why would the most basic itself (pre-universe) be very capable -and the very complex not very capable?

What's a pre-universe?

Though it may seem counterintuitive, far less would be required for the pre-universe development of self-awareness and creativity than for a universe prior to such.

There is no evidence of any pre-universe agent, and please explain this pre-time. How would a time before time work?

From our perspective, it seems that there was a singularity and big bang, then the entire extremely-complex universe developed, then self-awareness and creativity developed -but that is actually reverse logical order!

I'm not seeing this "logic." Explain?

How could the nearest possible things to nothing have any specific capability?

Physics isn't near to nothing. We know the basic mechanisms by which stars and elements came to be, and the mechanisms by which they developed the complexity we see in the world.

How is nothing more capable than a mind? Why would a stirring pool of the cosmic equivalent of ones and zeroes (far less complex than a blob or pile of whatever) -become a universe, elements, forces, stars, planets, DNA, physical life.... before developing any logical processing ability?

There is not nothing.
Physics and chemistry explain how the elements, stars, planets, life, and our brains came to be.

The big question is not how physics works, it's how physics came to be. Once in place, the interactions happen automatically

 

[Etritonakin]

Then my answer would be the same. Simple interactions and the 4 natural forces that are known in the universe as drivers.
Those being gravitational, electromagnetic. weak and strong nuclear forces.
This interaction would start out simple and become more complex over time.

You explanation though "any simple interaction is simple awareness" Not quite sure how this is so but if it is good for your explanation I suppose it works as well for mine.

"In" the universe -which once was not -so those forces may not have existed as such prior -and there was a prior.
Similarly, atoms did not exist, but that which could be arranged as atoms did exist.

I think folks did a great job reverse-engineering the universe, but even they are beginning to seek an explanation for how the singularity came to exist -was initiated and became the universe specifically -so the point of reference must be moved -and we ought to move it back as far as possible -which is greatest possible simplicity (or as near as we can now logically envision it).

Something must have happened between simplicity and the singularity/big bang.

Anything which is complex is made up of more-simple things, but also necessarily the-most-simple things -so the nature -even the very "stuff" -of the pre-universe simple environment is literally everywhere and everything.

Even so, the present level of complexity is technically unknown due to the fact that we have not discovered the most simple components yet.
It is said that everything can be expressed or described using math. The most simple states I can imagine -which could also become the present arrangement -would logically be something close to binary interaction -two states which moved to become arranged in more complex ways. Everything would literally be composed of just those two states.

Awareness is dependent on simple interactions -which make up complex interactions -is itself composed of simple/complex interactions -and can only be aware of those or the results of those. If things were not dynamic, there could be no awareness -and there would be nothing of which to be aware.

How intelligence came to be is not a problem. When intelligence first came to be is the issue.

I'm saying it would not be dependent on the preexistence of the universe -but that the existence of something as specific and complex as the universe -or even the singularity which became it -is, at the very least -far more likely to be dependent upon the preexistence of intelligence. I see it as an absolute necessity when referencing simplicity rather than the singularity.
It is how nature becomes capable.

(I have been meaning to study the particular steps in the formation of human intelligence -which actually included the life spans of many prior evolving life forms -because that is how things are done now to DNA-based life -but would not necessarily have to happen that way. We lack permanence as individuals. Such would not be the case prior to the formation of the atoms, etc.

The only advantage to or necessity for successive generations (and so death) I can see is conservation and recycling of material in a small, closed system. There is no reason why a permanent life form could not adapt/change/self-evolve -and a pre-elemental life form/intelligence would not be subject to present physical considerations.)

 

[Nakosis]

"In" the universe -which once was not -so those forces may not have existed as such prior -and there was a prior.
Similarly, atoms did not exist, but that which could be arranged as atoms did exist.

I think folks did a great job reverse-engineering the universe, but even they are beginning to seek an explanation for how the singularity came to exist -was initiated and became the universe specifically -so the point of reference must be moved -and we ought to move it back as far as possible -which is greatest possible simplicity (or as near as we can now logically envision it).

Something must have happened between simplicity and the singularity/big bang.

Anything which is complex is made up of more-simple things, but also necessarily the-most-simple things -so the nature -even the very "stuff" -of the pre-universe simple environment is literally everywhere and everything.

Even so, the present level of complexity is technically unknown due to the fact that we have not discovered the most simple components yet.
It is said that everything can be expressed or described using math. The most simple states I can imagine -which could also become the present arrangement -would logically be something close to binary interaction -two states which moved to become arranged in more complex ways. Everything would literally be composed of just those two states.

Awareness is dependent on simple interactions -which make up complex interactions -is itself composed of simple/complex interactions -and can only be aware of those or the results of those. If things were not dynamic, there could be no awareness -and there would be nothing of which to be aware.

How intelligence came to be is not a problem. When intelligence first came to be is the issue.

I'm saying it would not be dependent on the preexistence of the universe -but that the existence of something as specific and complex as the universe -or even the singularity which became it -is, at the very least -far more likely to be dependent upon the preexistence of intelligence. I see it as an absolute necessity when referencing simplicity rather than the singularity.
It is how nature becomes capable.

(I have been meaning to study the particular steps in the formation of human intelligence -which actually included the life spans of many prior evolving life forms -because that is how things are done now to DNA-based life -but would not necessarily have to happen that way. We lack permanence as individuals. Such would not be the case prior to the formation of the atoms, etc.

The only advantage to or necessity for successive generations (and so death) I can see is conservation and recycling of material in a small, closed system. There is no reason why a permanent life form could not adapt/change/self-evolve -and a pre-elemental life form/intelligence would not be subject to present physical considerations.)

Here's my theory, not making any claims as to its accuracy though.

As we currently see the universe, we, ourselves are a colony of billions of cells all interacting to create consciousness. We evolved from simpler such colonies of cells. Perhaps intelligence is a component of all matter. It only is seen as matter takes on more complex forms. So us humans are not the pinnacle of evolution. We will eventfully merge into a larger more complex form of life. We will continue to take more and more material of the universe to sustain this greater intelligence. This process continues until this intelligence becomes universal and uses all matter of the universe to sustain itself. The singularly omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent is reborn/rebuilt will be rebuilt from our current universe.

This singularity will itself is now complete and nothing else is left to do. It will choose to destroy itself, a new "big bang" in order to restart the cycle over.

So the singularity is/will be God. Currently however there is no God. God destroyed themselves in the creation of our universe but will eventually exist again many billions of years in the future when the singularity reforms.

 

[Etritonakin]

Here's my theory, not making any claims as to its accuracy though.

As we currently see the universe, we, ourselves are a colony of billions of cells all interacting to create consciousness. We evolved from simpler such colonies of cells. Perhaps intelligence is a component of all matter. It only is seen as matter takes on more complex forms. So us humans are not the pinnacle of evolution. We will eventfully merge into a larger more complex form of life. We will continue to take more and more material of the universe to sustain this greater intelligence. This process continues until this intelligence becomes universal and uses all matter of the universe to sustain itself. The singularly omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent is reborn/rebuilt will be rebuilt from our current universe.

This singularity will itself is now complete and nothing else is left to do. It will choose to destroy itself, a new "big bang" in order to restart the cycle over.

So the singularity is/will be God. Currently however there is no God. God destroyed themselves in the creation of our universe but will eventually exist again many billions of years in the future when the singularity reforms.

What is will or intelligence if not mastery? Some very interesting verses from the bible say that the creation will be set free from its bondage to decay by the children of God -who will be given bodies/interfaces like that which allows God (Logos) to subdue all things unto himself.

Seeing as will coupled with interface are the power to counteract and redirect natural tendencies, it could be applied to stabilize the creation -the entire "heavens"/universe if one -or all -were in the position to do so -even to counter its natural tendency to collapse (if that is the case). It is as if they will complete the circuit to keep it functioning rather than having to repeat the beginning in an endless cycle.

 

[Valjean]

What is will or intelligence if not mastery? Some very interesting verses from the bible say that the creation will be set free from its bondage to decay by the children of God -who will be given bodies/interfaces like that which allows God (Logos) to subdue all things unto himself.

Seeing as will coupled with interface are the power to counteract and redirect natural tendencies, it could be applied to stabilize the creation -the entire "heavens"/universe if one -or all -were in the position to do so -even to counter its natural tendency to collapse (if that is the case). It is as if they will complete the circuit to keep it functioning rather than having to repeat the beginning in an endless cycle.

Huh?
What mechanism for this is proposed?

 

[gnostic]

Someone recently advised me to not underestimate that of which nature was capable.
Referenced from the singularity/big bang, nature from that point is very capable due to relatively complex/specific arrangement.
However, how nature became capable has not been explained.
As present nature once did not exist as such, its present configuration cannot be most-basic nature.

If any material or force is considered, it is true that there is an extreme difference between that which anything will do based on its basic nature at any point and that which can be accomplished with it by a creative intelligence.
In other words, nature is actually not very capable until it becomes capable by becoming self-aware, knowledgeable and creative.

If very complex and interactive things (wood... pile vs bridge, metal... blob vs muscle car, stone... door stop vs cathedral) cannot become much else comparatively in the absence of creativity NOW -should we expect their very simple components to be very capable?

Does not simplicity allow for all things only generally -and complexity specifically?

More-basic things have more-basic properties -so less specific capability. Why would the most basic itself (pre-universe) be very capable -and the very complex not very capable?

Though it may seem counterintuitive, far less would be required for the pre-universe development of self-awareness and creativity than for a universe prior to such! Any simple interaction is simple awareness and can be the basis of logical processing -and there would be far less of which to be aware early on! Then the simple would have the capability of knowledgeably specifying -therefore of becoming specific! It would require little more than basic logic/increasingly complex interaction -and then gaining a perspective -essentially looking into a simple mirror at some point.

Both the universe and creativity have always been generally possible -but what would make each specifically possible -and in what order?
From our perspective, it seems that there was a singularity and big bang, then the entire extremely-complex universe developed, then self-awareness and creativity developed -but that is actually reverse logical order!
How could the nearest possible things to nothing have any specific capability?
Why would the very complex and capable human mind struggle to reverse engineer that which was produced without any specific capability at all? How is nothing more capable than a mind? Why would a stirring pool of the cosmic equivalent of ones and zeroes (far less complex than a blob or pile of whatever) -become a universe, elements, forces, stars, planets, DNA, physical life.... before developing any logical processing ability?

"Nature" is only capable of running its course -not altering its course -until it first develops capability -which is its natural course.
Even at this moment -regardless of what is considered, the difference between very-basically capable and very capable is the development of awareness -a mind -a self. That IS capability.

Why do people need to attribute natural phenomena and natural processes with unsubstantiated superstitions and beliefs in the supernatural?

Why must there be “god did it” or “spirit did it” or “Designer did it” for the explained and the unexplained about the universe’s origin?

For millennia, people have made baseless claims about gods or spirits, who were attributed to the natural world, about the earth, sun, moon, stars, mountains, woods, rivers, seas, to fertility in agriculture, animals & humans, creation of humans, animals & plants, winds, rain, thunders, and the list go on.

When each of these were explained (and verified) without superstitions and false religious beliefs, these claims still persisted, extending not only on Earth and our solar system, but also to the whole universe.

The Big Bang model was one of the earlier 20th century attempt at trying to explain the universe through natural sciences, not with more superstitions of the supernatural.

And yet, here are again, with another thread trying to associate the universe origin with more useless and worthless claims of intelligent design.

Why do some people continue with same “god did it” about the explained and the unexplained?

The Big Bang model have been able to explain - and verify - some aspects of HOW the universe work, but some remain either untested or unknown as mysteries.

And when there are mysteries, we could speculate or we could admit that we don’t know. The former - the “speculating” - is not true, until such speculation can be tested. The later, is honest answer to what is currently “unknown”.

Sciences are all about testing.

These test not only verified models that are true, the evidence can also point out weak models or refute models that are false or wrong.

The whole creationism and Intelligent Design creationism are untestable, because god, spirit or Designer themselves cannot be tested. They may have places in religions and theology, and even in some loopy philosophies, they have no place in Natural Sciences.

All you are doing, is trying to replace natural explanations to nature, with supernatural claims, claims that you cannot test and verify.