Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[godnotgod]

This is a question that Physicist G. Schroeder asks:

Q: Very occasionally monkeys hammering away at typewriters will type out one of Shakespeare's sonnets.

A: Not true, not in this universe. But it is a popular assumption that the monkeys can do it, a wrong assumption that randomness can produce meaningful stable complexity. But let's look at the numbers to see why the monkeys will always fail. I'll take the only sonnet I know, sonnet number 18, “Shall I compare thee to a summer's day …” All sonnets are 14 lines, all about the same length. This sonnet has approximately 488 letters (neglect spaces). With a typewriter or keyboard having 26 letters, the number of possible combinations is 26 to the exponential power of 488 or approximately ten to the power of 690. That is a one with 690 zeros after it. Convert the entire 10 to the 56 grams of the universe (forget working with the monkeys) into computer chips each weighing a billionth of a gram and have each chip type out a billion sonnet trials a second (or 488 billion operations per second) since the beginning of time, ten to the 18th seconds ago. The number of trials will be approximately ten to power of 92, a huge number but minuscule when compared with the 10 to power 690 possible combinations of the letters. We are off by a factor of ten to power of 600. The laws of probability confirm that the universe would have reached its heat death before getting one sonnet. We will never get a sonnet by random trials, and the most basic molecules of life are far more complex than the most intricate sonnet. As reported in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune, when the world’s most influential atheist philosopher, Antony Flew, read this analysis of complexity and several analyses related to the complexity of life brought in my third book, The Hidden Face of God, and Roy Varghese’s excellent book, The Wonder of the World, he abandoned his errant belief in a Godless world and publically apologized for leading so many persons astray for the decades that his atheistic thoughts held sway. (Gerald Schroeder Home Page
~~~~~~~

In my own humble way, I could have said that monkeys would not have done that, no matter how much time they had. Time was at one time seen as the ''hero''. But monkeys are monkeys!

Yet time does not always mean there will be sufficient change in order to facilitate the change needed in the first place. Why do we think it does?

So, my question is this: If that is so unlikely for monkeys to do... then, if the multiverse exists, how can we even be sure that they would all be different universes, thus giving us sufficiently correct odds that our universe could develop the way it did. I don't see we have licence to expect such a positive result.

Now there are those who say that this universe might be the proverbial bouncing ball, forever coming into existence and then dying only to be reborn. If so, why should we think that would be any better with the odds?

In other words, if it is so difficult to do, how is time going to help?

A dice with six sides is one thing.... eventually we know that the six will come up. But what of the dice with a trillion sides. Is a six going to come up then?
It is hard to say it ever would, there are just too many chances of it falling onto another number. It might never do! Are we mistakenly thinking it would have to do, just because of an allegiance to some kind of worldly thinking?

And why does probability act the way it does anyway? What drives that?

It appears without intelligence involved in creation, we have no right to expect anything positively happening at all.

Intelligence is not a feature of the universe, as the question implies; it is the universe itself. The problem is semantic. For example, we say: 'It is raining', when there is no 'it' that rains. There is only raining itself. So the universe is not an entity that 'has' intelligence. What you see as the universe is in itself intelligence, as summed up in the following statement by the great Indian mystic, Vivekenanda:

'The universe is the Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'

BTW, the very fact that monkeys are typing away on typewriters alone is intelligence. Why? Because intelligence always involves a sense of play, which is what the monkeys are doing. Out of that play comes creativity, which is spontaneous intelligence. Without a sense of play, Shakespeare could not have produced his creations.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There is only raining itself.

And rain doesn't need to think.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You misunderstand everything, genetics, evolution, infinity and Dawkin's experiment, but then ... what else is new? Weasel program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Three quotes from that site: note one thing, evolution does NOT have a target phrase, it has NO direction.... yet Dawkins is saying that it COMPARES letters with a phrase it ALREADY has. As schroeder poitned out, the only thing it shows is that his computer is working correctly.

Any particular sequence of 28 characters could be selected as a "target" phrase, all equally as improbable as Dawkins's chosen target, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL".

~~~

A computer program could be written to carry out the actions of Dawkins's hypothetical monkey, continuously generating combinations of 26 letters and spaces at high speed. Even at the rate of millions of combinations per second, it is unlikely, even given the entire lifetime of the universe to run, that the program would ever produce the phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL".[1]

~~~

We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

 

[Robert.Evans]

''original phrase''!!!

 

[Robert.Evans]

But why? We can do that with any number. We can find ways to fit 34, 758, 992, or whatever. So it's just no meaning to do that. Anyway. That's his prerogative.

It fits 6 24hour periods, which fits genesis

Actually, "letters" are produced in evolution and "saved" for later. Not intentionally, but many mutations are harmless or non-functional. They stick around for a long time without harm, so there's kind'a something like that actually happening, but that's for another discussion. That's how evolution works. Production of variation (mostly harmless), then selective pressure reducing the non-fit. (More than 90%, actually 98%, of the human DNA is non-coding genes, i.e. not used at all to produce polypeptides, they're dormant.)

I thought the discussion we had was more about the fine tune universes rather than how evolution works though.

So you are saying that letters are stored in evolution? and then used later? Kinda lucky, though far easier if that is the case.

I don't think a fine tuned universe has to be foreseen. It's enough to produce enough number of universes to eventually get to a functioning one.

Only if there is a program or inteligence with such a thought in the first place, or else why would it. Chaos is chaos.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Intelligence is not a feature of the universe, as the question implies; it is the universe itself. The problem is semantic. For example, we say: 'It is raining', when there is no 'it' that rains. There is only raining itself. So the universe is not an entity that 'has' intelligence. What you see as the universe is in itself intelligence, as summed up in the following statement by the great Indian mystic, Vivekenanda:

'The universe is the Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'

BTW, the very fact that monkeys are typing away on typewriters alone is intelligence. Why? Because intelligence always involves a sense of play, which is what the monkeys are doing. Out of that play comes creativity, which is spontaneous intelligence. Without a sense of play, Shakespeare could not have produced his creations.

If intelligence or consciousness is not part of or integral to the universe, how does it form. What shapes it? why?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Please explain how you plug faith into a scenario where the odds are known. Thanks.



You've opted to introduce Krauss and then dispense with Krauss. So I'll ignore the entire tangent.

...

Meanwhile, isn't it readily apparent that some people's "theory" relies entirely upon an Infinite Probability Machine? That they opt to refer to this machine as "God" doesn't make their alleged "theory" any more clear, does it?

Or is God not infinite?



You've cited the alleged narrow margins for the existence of space/time, but I still fail to see how that supports the notion that a non-temporal/non-spatial supernatural intellect was behind those "narrow" margins. Setting that aside and assuming that it was a disembodied mind somehow existing outside of space/time ... would you care to explain how decisions get made outside of space and time?



Aren't we the only known "primary beneficiaries" no matter what? Claiming that the entire universe was the intention of a God (a god? Multiple gods? A trillion gods named Roger?) seems the very pinnacle of hubris.



You must mean "creating a man-made self extracting archive of information that develops it's own consciousness," correct? And if you're resorting to citing man-made examples to explain that which isn't man-made ... aren't you already comparing apples and oranges?



If it's a wash ... then it's a wash. You've failed to demonstrate that "Goddunnit®" has any explanatory power whatsoever. Sorry.

What about naturaldunnit? You explained that yet?

 

[godnotgod]

If intelligence or consciousness is not part of or integral to the universe, how does it form. What shapes it? why?

Nothing. It is formless, shapeless, unborn, deathless. Out of the formless and shapeless intelligence comes the manifested universe of form and shape. So, you see, intelligence does not come out of the universe, the universe comes out of intelligence. More accurately, the universe is none other than intelligence itself. There is no duality here.

Why is there intelligence? Intelligence is just the nature of Reality. Why it manifests as the universe is another question.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Nothing. It is formless, shapeless, unborn, deathless. Out of the formless and shapeless intelligence comes the manifested universe of form and shape. So, you see, intelligence does not come out of the universe, the universe comes out of intelligence. More accurately, the universe is none other than intelligence itself. There is no duality here.

Why is there intelligence? Intelligence is just the nature of Reality. Why it manifests as the universe is another question.

I think that is what I am trying to get at. If you want expand, please feel free.

 

[godnotgod]

And rain doesn't need to think.

Ya, it doesn't even need to think that it doesn't need to think.

 

[Looncall]

Nothing. It is formless, shapeless, unborn, deathless. Out of the formless and shapeless intelligence comes the manifested universe of form and shape. So, you see, intelligence does not come out of the universe, the universe comes out of intelligence. More accurately, the universe is none other than intelligence itself. There is no duality here.

Why is there intelligence? Intelligence is just the nature of Reality. Why it manifests as the universe is another question.

This looks like word salad to me. Intelligence is surely a process, not a substance. Your use of the word intelligence is like talking about a square triangle. It is not meaningful in the context in which you place it.

 

[Ouroboros]

It fits 6 24hour periods, which fits genesis
So you are saying that letters are stored in evolution? and then used later? Kinda lucky, though far easier if that is the case.

How can it? We don't have exact number of days since Big Bang.

The estimated age of the universe right now is 13.798±0.037 billion years. The +/- there means that it's more or less. So it's within a 0.074 billion years range. How can that be considered "fitting"?

Regarding evolution, there are four letters if we consider the nucleotides, but we could also consider just the codons which produce 20 different peptides. All these together could be considered the letters, while the polypeptides produces could be words. So yes, in a sense there are "letters" in evolution.

Only if there is a program or inteligence with such a thought in the first place, or else why would it. Chaos is chaos.

What is intelligence? Can you define what intelligence is?

 

[Sapiens]

... Only if there is a program or inteligence with such a thought in the first place, or else why would it. Chaos is chaos.

Super-naturalism demands the injection of chaos into a well ordered natural system. Your god, where he/she/it to exist is just a chaotic addition.

 

[godnotgod]

This looks like word salad to me. Intelligence is surely a process, not a substance. Your use of the word intelligence is like talking about a square triangle. It is not meaningful in the context in which you place it.

Intelligence is before process. When you stop all thinking processes, conscious intelligence is still there, as it has always been. IOW, intelligence is pure seeing, a state, or condition of being, rather than of existence. We call this precondition state of awareness 'metaphysic' (not metaphysics).

I have said that substance and intelligence are one and the same. However, I am fairly certain that what I mean by substance is not the same as your use of the word. Your response indicates to me that you see substance and intelligence in opposing, dualistic terms. Please tell me what you mean by your use of the word 'substance', and then we can go on from there.

 

[joshua3886]

That was a mathematical statement about probability, not a philosophical or physics statement. And the full statement goes that an infinite number of monkeys working at an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite amount of time will produce Shakespeare's plays in chronological order. It's just a simple statement about randomness. If you flip a coin enough times eventually it will land on it's edge, even though it is unlikely for a coin to land on its edge, eventually it will happen. .

 

[Rick O'Shez]

When you stop all thinking processes, conscious intelligence is still there, as it has always been. IOW, intelligence is pure seeing, a state, or condition of being, rather than of existence

Isn't intelligence an attribute of consciousness?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Intelligence is before process. When you stop all thinking processes, conscious intelligence is still there, as it has always been. IOW, intelligence is pure seeing, a state, or condition of being, rather than of existence. We call this precondition state of awareness 'metaphysic' (not metaphysics).

I would call consciousness ''before'' thinking processes as 'awareness'. I would compare it perhaps with a babe which is aware of things, but not able to to cognitively be active in what it sees, nor appreciate it fully, nor recognise it fully, yet still aware of everything going on. Like that statement of yours though.

I have said that substance and intelligence are one and the same. However, I am fairly certain that what I mean by substance is not the same as your use of the word. Your response indicates to me that you see substance and intelligence in opposing, dualistic terms. Please tell me what you mean by your use of the word 'substance', and then we can go on from there.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That was a mathematical statement about probability, not a philosophical or physics statement. And the full statement goes that an infinite number of monkeys working at an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite amount of time will produce Shakespeare's plays in chronological order. It's just a simple statement about randomness. If you flip a coin enough times eventually it will land on it's edge, even though it is unlikely for a coin to land on its edge, eventually it will happen. .

Do you not find it strange that it will though? We would not expect it normally, though it could happen.But do you not find yourself asking why that is. I do. It seems everything has to have its turn at the crease.

 

[Robert.Evans]

How can it? We don't have exact number of days since Big Bang.

The estimated age of the universe right now is 13.798±0.037 billion years. The +/- there means that it's more or less. So it's within a 0.074 billion years range. How can that be considered "fitting"?

Regarding evolution, there are four letters if we consider the nucleotides, but we could also consider just the codons which produce 20 different peptides. All these together could be considered the letters, while the polypeptides produces could be words. So yes, in a sense there are "letters" in evolution.


What is intelligence? Can you define what intelligence is?

What is intelligence? Good question. The point I was making was, we expect certain things to happen, but why should we. You said that if there are enough universes eventually you will get one that functions. (I think now that they all [or most] will). Why should we expect that? Something is either saying that must happen, or it is just plain luck. I do not believe in luck. So something must say that everything will get its turn eventually, however unlikely. That way you can be sure of the outcome... also it means that there is freedom in the evolving consciousness. It also means however, that the different worlds/universe/realities will be infinite. In their OWN WAY, they will all work, even if we could not recognise that. though it is possible that some might not. After all, if some work, it implies that some don't, otherwise how do you have some working? (if there is a right there is a left)

 

[Robert.Evans]

Isn't intelligence an attribute of consciousness?

I would say so, but it does not mean you have to use it to be conscious. So it could be dormant.