Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Robert.Evans]

I have no doubt, that in some time in the future, science will show that there is a multiverse and there are many universes in it, much like evolution, all showing different aspects of life, perhaps life we can't even regonise. They will probably show that there is sufficient.... and that they are all different, and that will mean that our universe is bound to happen. I think that is almost a given. It will be a case of science pushing God further into the darkness of human thought. Then believers will be seen as even more irational.

But I have to ask, if the WHOLE thing is evolving from something we are not aware of, (because that something wants it that way and it can be no other way), then why should we not expect to see it just that way. I think that would fit well, however disapointing it might be.

The fine tuning argument will go out of the window.

I don't personally think it will be any less relevant, as I don't think there will be another universe exactly like ours, much like there are not two people the same. Each universe will be its own realitity, its own expression of the Self that it replicates. Even a child does not look exactly the same as its parents, perhaps for obvious reasons considering there are two of them.

This brings me to a thought that there is a mirror universe to ours. Within that is your true soul mate, the other half of you. It will be the one, that when you meet it, it will be like looking into a mirror and seeing yourself, your twin.
Now, is that is the case, then why not a reflection of the multiverse (and of course many others besides stretching into infinity), which would be an opposite to what is here. Just how ''opposite'' is hard to tell.

I do believe that the 'first-principle' is the separation within the higher-consciousness and that brings about what we think of as God. That is the first mirror. After the first mirror, it is not quite what it seems, as the feminine is the masculine, and visa versa, it reflects opposite.

So..... the problem with trying to give worldly evidence for God is, much like the BBang, God has changed form since his original, and changed many times over. It is a form of pantheism, that God is everything. What we wish to see is God somehow separate, and that is pretty much impossible in this realm.

So intelligence inbued within everything appears to me to make great sense. I still think that luck will not do it, and introducing a false artificial intelligence, and calling it a 'process' or a 'mechanism' is unintentionally dishonest, when we look at the whole picture. It is only when we explain the smaller physical picture that it makes sense, and good sense. It does nothing though to open up the fundamental question like, Why are we here? Why is there life? What is the point of living? Why do people believe in God still ... To answer them, only fudamental consciousness, in a cocept that we call God, will do.

 

[godnotgod]

Isn't intelligence an attribute of consciousness?

Where is the separation?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Where is the separation?

My idea of the separation come from the Source of everything (which is what I consider to be awareness) and within that grew consciousness (more as we would understand it, the babe to the adult). Separation came in there first. The Source (Awareness) would be masculine and the Image (Consciousness) would be feminine. Although being feminine, it would be an exact image of the Self of Source. That is the first and it then replicates what has gone before a myraid times over.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It means you also have reflective Gods, plural, as they separate as an image to the one before.

 

[Looncall]

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.

By substance, I mean whatever goes toward making objects. Matter is the only example we know of.

I see intelligence as something that brains do. Can you offer any example of intelligence that does not involve a brain, or something equivalent?

If you wish to claim that the universe is intelligent, you need to show that it has the sort of structure that can support the process of intelligence. To run a computer program, you need a computer.

I am not impressed by your fancy language. In my experience, it raises a red flag for the presence of balderdash.

 

[godnotgod]

By substance, I mean whatever goes toward making objects. Matter is the only example we know of.

So what does Quantum Physics tell us about the nature of the material world?

 

[godnotgod]

My idea of the separation come from the Source of everything (which is what I consider to be awareness) and within that grew consciousness (more as we would understand it, the babe to the adult). Separation came in there first. The Source (Awareness) would be masculine and the Image (Consciousness) would be feminine. Although being feminine, it would be an exact image of the Self of Source. That is the first and it then replicates what has gone before a myraid times over.

Is this your own model?

I just want to know at what point intelligence is separate from consciousness.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Is this your own model?

I just want to know at what point intelligence is separate from consciousness.

Yes and I don't think it is. You have thoughts?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

When I fly, I have no proof I'll arrive at my destination alive, the odds clearly show I can't be sure of it, I'm 99.9% sure, I have faith that I won't be the .1%

you're welcome

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?

God doesn't need infinite probabilities to produce our world,
just as an author does not need a million typewriters and a million years to produce a sonnet

Both can do it first time. - that's the power of explanation only creative intelligence has

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?

As above, the unique power of explanation of creative intelligence.

How are decisions made outside of space and time? you tell me, Same way cosmic lotto machines operate outside of space and time! How did the magician identify your card? You have no idea, so you must assume chance? power of explanation again.

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

As above, we may have absolutely no idea how the magician identified the card, that does not take anything away from the power of explanation of his creative intelligence. It reinforces it. For the trick to be hidden by accident by 'flukedunnit®' would be yet one more bizzare fluke to compound the rest.


IF you see 'Help' spelled in rocks on a deserted island beach, no evidence of people around - you assume fluke action of the waves? creative intelligence has no power of explanation because you can't see it?

 

[godnotgod]

Yes and I don't think it is. You have thoughts?

I'm not understanding you:

You said earlier that: My idea of the separation come from the Source of everything....

So are you now saying you don't think there is a separation?

 

[godnotgod]

I see intelligence as something that brains do. Can you offer any example of intelligence that does not involve a brain, or something equivalent?
.

If something were capable of synthesizing its own food from readily available biochemicals, but did not have a brain, would you say it was intelligent, or that the synthesis of food is an intelligent process? In spite of the fact that I have a brain, I still cannot synthesize my own food.

 

[Looncall]

If something were capable of synthesizing its own food from readily available biochemicals, but did not have a brain, would you say it was intelligent, or that the synthesis of food is an intelligent process? In spite of the fact that I have a brain, I still cannot synthesize my own food.

No. Likely that behaviour would arise from the chemistry of its components, just as a snowflake assembles due to the properties of the water molecule. In any case, your example is nonsense. The biochemicals would be its food.

Things can happen in this universe as a consequence of the properties of the universe and the things in it without involving intelligence. It does not take intelligence for a ball to roll downhill.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I would call consciousness ''before'' thinking processes as 'awareness'.

I think consciousness and awareness are pretty interchangeable here. It's the ability to process and understand the experience which develops.

 

[Ouroboros]

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)

I also think that there are many universes that work, and I also believe that there are many ways life can come to be. Our type of biological life isn't the only kind. That's why I feel the "fine tuned" argument is wrong. It suggests that our universe is the only kind, and our biological life is the only one that can exist, but that's not what I believe.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm not understanding you:

You said earlier that: My idea of the separation come from the Source of everything....

So are you now saying you don't think there is a separation?

I will try and make it clearer: You asked:

Is this your own model?

Yes

I just want to know at what point intelligence is separate from consciousness.

I don't think it is.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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

Day One and not a first day: seeing time from the beginning
Now the fact that the Bible tells us there is "evening and morning Day One", comes to teach us time from a Biblical perspective, from near the beginning looking forward.

If the Torah were seeing time from the days of Moses on Mount Sinai - 2448 years after Adam - the text would not have written Day One. Because by Sinai, hundreds of thousands of days already passed. It would have said "a first day." By the second day of Genesis, the Bible says "a second day," because there was already the first day with which to compare it.

We look back in time, and say the universe is 15 billion years old. But as every scientist knows, when we say the universe is 15 billion years old, there's another half of the sentence that we rarely bother to say. The other half of the sentence is: The universe is 15 billion years old as seen from the time-space coordinates of the earth.

The key is that the Torah looks forward in time, from very different time-space coordinates, when the universe was small. Since then, the universe has expanded out. Space stretches, and that stretching of space totally changes the perception of time. Imagine in your mind going back billions of years to the beginning of time. Now pretend way back at the beginning of time, when time grabs hold, there's an intelligent community. (It's totally fictitious.) Imagine that the intelligent community has a laser, and it's going to shoot out a blast of light every second. Every second -- pulse. Pulse. Pulse. And on each pulse of light the following formation is printed (printing information on light, electro-magnetic radiation, is common practice): "I'm sending you a pulse every second." Billions of years later, way far down the time line, we here on Earth have a big satellite dish antenna and we receive that pulse of light. And on that pulse of light we read "I'm sending you a pulse every second."

Light travels 300 million meters per second. So at the beginning, the two light pulses are separated by a second of travel or 300 million meters. Now they travel through space for billions of years until they reach the Earth. But wait a minute. Is the universe static? No. The universe is expanding. The universe expands by space stretching. So as these pulses travel through space for billions of years, space is stretching. What's happening to these pulses? The space between them is also stretching. So the pulses get further and further apart. Billions of years later, when the first pulse arrives, we read on it "I'm sending you a pulse every second." A message from outer space. You call all your friends, and you wait for the next pulse to arrive. Does it arrive second later? No! A year later? Maybe not. Maybe billions of years later. Because the amount of time this pulse of light has traveled through space will determine the amount of space stretching that has occurred, and so how much space and therefore how much time there will be between the arrival of the pulses. That's standard cosmology.

15 billion years or six days?
Today, we look back in time and we see approximately 15 billion years of history. Looking forward from when the universe is very small - billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning of stable matter, the threshold energy of protons and neutrons (their nucleosynthesis), relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. A dozen physics textbooks all bring the same number. The general relationship between nucleosynthesis, that time near the beginning at the threshold energy of protons and neutrons when matter formed, and time today is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see a pulse every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.

The Talmud tells us that the soul of Adam was created at five and a half days after the beginning of the six days. That is a half day before the termination of the sixth day. At that moment the cosmic calendar ceases and an earth based calendar starts. . How would we see those days stretched by a million million? Five and a half days times a million million, gives us five and a half million million days. Dividing that by 365 days in a year, that comes out to be 15 billion years. NASA gives a value of about 14 billion years. Considering the many approximations, and that the Bible works with only six periods of time, the agreement to within a few percent is extraordinary. The universe is billons of years old from one perspective and a mere six days old from another. And both are correct!

The five and a half days of Genesis are not of equal duration. Each time the universe doubles in size, the perception of time halves as we project that time back toward the beginning of the universe. The rate of doubling, that is the fractional rate of change, is very rapid at the beginning and decreases with time simply because as the universe gets larger and larger, even though the actual expansion rate is approximately constant, it takes longer and longer for the overall size to double. Because of this, the earliest of the six days have most of the15 billion years sequestered with them. For the duration of each day and the details of how that matches with the measured history of the universe and the earth, see The Science of God.

CORRECTION TO THE CALCULATION OF THE AGE OF THE UNIVERSE
Following a talk I gave at AZUSA Pacific University, February 2011, a participant noted that when calculating the expansion ratio of space [that is, by what fraction space had stretched] from the era of nucleosynthesis to our current time, I had neglected to correct for the effect that the increase in the rate of universal expansion has on the current cosmic microwave radiation background. This increase introduces a non-linear effect. [That is, the rate of expansion is not constant, rather the rate is increasing.] The correction is in the order of 10%. Had the expansion been linear [and not super-linear resulting from the increased rate], the CMRB would be, not the currently observed 2.76 K, but 3.03 K. Introducing this correction into the exponential equation that details the duration of the six 24 hour days of Genesis Chapter One results in an age of the universe from our perspective of 14 billion years [14, 000,000,000 years]. From the Bible’s perspective of time for those six evocative days of Genesis, the number of our years held compressed within each of those six 24 hour days of Genesis, starting with Day One, would be, in billions of years, respectively, 7.1; 3.6; 1.8; 0.89; 0.45; 0.23.

(Gerald Schroeder - Articles - Age of the Universe

 

[Ouroboros]

(Gerald Schroeder - Articles - Age of the Universe

I don't understand his motivation. That's my point. If the story isn't literal but figurative or analogous, there's no need to try to fit specific words or part of it to science. The story is to give us an idea of God's omnipotence. In a sense, I read Genesis is the story of the "source" creating the Universe through big bang and evolution over whatever time it too, and there's no need to retrofit the story. I suspect he wants to prove that God is behind Genesis and affirm his own religion rather than see a spiritual value to the story. It's like trying to fit Harry Potter to reality and compare wands to remote controls or cell phones for the purpose of validating the "trueness" and "divinity of Rowlings". There's really no need to do that. If someone has that need, then it shows me that the person has some unresolved doubt with their faith and need this to get some recognition and validation. That kind of people tend to be very biased in all what they do.

-edit

Let me put the chaos/randomness issue in a different perspective. If there is an intelligence that creates the order, there still has to be randomness in existence. Otherwise, there's no randomness at all but everything is controlled and dictated by this intelligence. If that's the case, what's the use? We can do anything and that's just in his plans anyway. So for free will to be of any value, there has to be allowance for events outside the control of this super-intelligence, which means that randomness very much can exist. But still, this, in my view as a pantheist still is part of God as a whole, even us and our will. In other words, my view is that with or without this super-intelligence, chaos and order are both integral parts of God. They're part of God's nature, in other words. God's nature is both chaos and order, random and selection, ebb and flow, potential and realization...

 

[NulliuSINverba]

When I fly, I have no proof I'll arrive at my destination alive, the odds clearly show I can't be sure of it, I'm 99.9% sure, I have faith that I won't be the .1%

you're welcome

So your faith in God is like flying on a plane? Only 99.9% certain?

God doesn't need infinite probabilities to produce our world

How do you know that?

... just as an author does not need a million typewriters and a million years to produce a sonnet

Both can do it first time.

"That's not writing ... that's typing." ~ Truman Capote

Whether or not God can (or even did) "do it the first time" or not is irrelevant to the fact that Christians do indeed hold him to be infinite. Viewing God as an Infinite Probability Machine still seems to be perfectly apt.

that's the power of explanation only creative intelligence has

Positing a creative intelligence explains nothing. It's answering a mystery with a mystery.

How are decisions made outside of space and time? you tell me ...

I'm not the one claiming that intellects can exist outside of space and time. So I'll leave you to conjure an answer.

You have no idea, so you must assume chance?

I don't automatically assume chance (although is must certainly be regarded as a possibility). However, assuming (read: claiming) that a supernatural entity that happens to possess mutually irreconcilable attributes seems an even more incredible pseudo-explanation.

Anyway, unless they're willing to claim that God had not other choice than to create the universe, aren't proponents of ID still appealing to chance?

As above, we may have absolutely no idea how the magician identified the card, that does not take anything away from the power of explanation of his creative intelligence. It reinforces it.

You're seeking to forge a bogus comparison, aren't you? For your Card-Trick-Analogy to be accurate, wouldn't you be obliged to maintain that our hypothetical magician actually utilized some sort of supernatural ability to guess the card (instead of trickery and skill)?

You seem to be suggesting that (like a magician) God only appears to have pulled our universe out of his hat. The adults in the audience ought to know that there must be a rational explanation.

For the trick to be hidden by accident by 'flukedunnit®' would be yet one more bizzare fluke to compound the rest.

Again: The simplest explanation tends to be the best one, correct? Which one seems simpler:

A. The Universe Happened.
B. The Universe Happened Because An All-Merciful, All-Just, Extra-Dimensional, Non-Linear, Non-Temporal Omniscient (except in matters of free will of course) Intelligence That's Totally Obsessed With Human Dietary and Sexual Practices To The Point Of Consigning Its Creations To Eternal Torment If They Don't Toe The Line Made It Happen Amen?

Which explanation seems more reliant on "bizarre flukes" to you?

IF you see 'Help' spelled in rocks on a deserted island beach, no evidence of people around - you assume fluke action of the waves?

Got any evidence of that ever happening? I'd love to hear all about them. Or it. Whatever the case(s) may be.

creative intelligence has no power of explanation because you can't see it?

Aren't you ever going to get tired of pointing to man-made items that reflect human intellect as evidence to support your claim that items that are not man-made must also have a creator and must reflect some sort of non-human intellect?

Because (to be honest) it's a really tedious and bogus analogy. Why not cite something that isn't man-made to support your claim that the universe was also made by Divine Fiat?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

which seems simpler

a static/eternal universe that just was, as is, no beginning or end requiring explanation
or Lemaitre'primeval atom, a specific beginning to all space/time/energy/matter as we know it

what about Newton's simple and immutable laws of physics v quantum physics?

simpler = more tempting perhaps, but the universe likes to challenge us a bit more

as for

A. The Universe Happened.
B. The Universe Happened Because An All-Merciful, All-Just, Extra-Dimensional, Non-Linear, Non-Temporal Omniscient (except in matters of free will of course) Intelligence That's Totally Obsessed With Human Dietary and Sexual Practices To The Point Of Consigning Its Creations To Eternal Torment If They Don't Toe The Line Made It Happen Amen?

likewise -which seems simpler

A. the card just happened to be the one you picked
B. the card was the one you picked because the intricate pattern on the back has a tiny asymmetrical detail and a creative magician with a good eye and quick hand turned the pack around without you noticing before you stuck your card back in,


In both cases the second explanation is both more complex and more plausible, because it involves purpose, intent, creativity - very powerful explanations for something that would otherwise be improbable by chance.[/QUOTE]

 

[NulliuSINverba]

What about naturaldunnit? You explained that yet?

Nope. Because I'm not claiming that "Nature Done It" is the explanation, although (after a fashion) it certainly could be.

Rather than allowing you to maintain the false dichotomy of either A ("God Done It") and B ("Nature Done It"), I'm going to suggest that you're erring in trying to anthropomorphize nature and insinuate that it is motivated to do anything.

Nature IS it. It does nothing. It simply is. I attribute no motivation at all to nature.

Again: You are the one claiming that there's a difference between A ("God") and B ("Luck & Magic"). However, you've habitually failed (or neglected) to explain that difference. Yet you're claiming that those who harbor skepticism about your fanciful (ahem) "explanation" have no other option but to embrace "Luck & Magic" as an explanation? Please.

Those of us that prefer to not accept your claims of supernatural mumbo-jumbo aren't burdened with having to explain anything. And if the universe did indeed occur naturally (which I am not claiming), then we're still obliged to stop our inquiry at the singularity, aren't we? You're just claiming to know with certainty what lies beyond the boundary of knowledge, aren't you?

...

I'm not willing to make unsubstantiated claims ... and you are.
I'm not willing to accept unsubstantiated claims ... and you are.
I'm not demanding an answer ... and you've invented one.

...

Hopefully, there are many other differences.