Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Robert.Evans]

About Kaku or godnotgod?

You said:
But the context that Godnotgood tried to put it was incorrect.

So that.

 

[Robert.Evans]

True enough, sorry about the clumsy phrasing.

Let's try: Does gravity require intelligence so that things fall in the proper direction?

Tut, tut, tut... I expected so much more from you...haha.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Maybe you mean do items know they should fall. Yes because gravity dictates they will. So your question might be is gravity aware it is a dictator?

Here's one for you. Are people aware their questions are nonsense?

That is very insightful!

 

[Robert.Evans]

It occurred to me that what you've been talking about sounds very much like Brahman. So maybe you're really a Hindu.

Haha... it is news to me if so

 

[Robert.Evans]

Look here: you are the one who kept asking me what the experience is like. I provided an answer, which is not the answer you wanted to hear, which was:

'The spirituality found in Zen is not to think about God while peeling the potatoes; it is simply to peel the potatoes'

I am not playing a game with you. I have provided an answer that you can use directly as an answer to your question. But the intuitive mind must be opened up in order for you to see what this is saying. Now, I have given you a clue to help you, which asks: 'What kind of activity is peeling the potatoes?' I know you think the whole question is nonsense, but I am dead serious. The Zen statement is far more profound than you may think.

Now I know that Theravada is an orthodox system, but all orthodoxy is based on original mystical experience, which is what the Buddha experienced. Zen is the mystical branch of orthodox Buddhism, so it is a return to the source of the original experience.

I hope I don't miss the answer!

 

[godnotgod]

Nah, It's just old twaddle dredged up to fool the gullible. I doubt it was ever anything but a scheme by the mystics to escape the hard work of survival.

Now THAT's twaddle!

 

[godnotgod]

Science has never had a "nervous breakdown". Such a statement is baseless and ignorant.

It's not meant literally, but as a metaphor for the equations not only not working, but rendering meaningless gibberish.

Scientifically? One would have to figure out what requires intelligence and what doesn't. What qualifies as intelligence ect. But "need" would only be a guess. There is no reason to believe the universe "needs" intelligence.

So maybe the opening question is phrased inappropriately. Perhaps it should have been something like: 'Is there an underlying intelligence to the universe?', which does not imply an anthropomorphic controlling entity. In Taoist terms, Tao IS that underlying intelligence in a way that creates and nurtures all of life, but never dominates it, nor interferes with it. In Tao, everything comes out of it, and everything returns to it.

Great Tao is like a boat that drifts;
It can go this way; it can go that.
The ten thousand creatures owe their existence to it and it does not disown them;
Yet having produced them, it does not take possession of them.
Makes no claim to be master over them,
And asks for nothing from them.
Therefore it may be called the Lowly.
The ten thousand creatures obey it,
Though they know not that they have a master;
Therefore it is called the Great.
So too the Sage just because he never at any time makes a show of greatness
In fact achieves greatness.

Tao te Ching, Ch 34

You said it not me. Its not of the mind. (thought it really really is. Just probably not from the prefrontal cortex)

It's from direct seeing, without thought, into the nature of things. It is not belief.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Haha... it is news to me if so

Maybe, but what you say does sound very similar to some schools of Hinduism, so you might find it useful to explore more widely. RF is a good place to do it, actually.

 

[godnotgod]

Theoretical physics is theoretical. Part of the problem is that people can put their entire life into a field of science and never EVER get a single step closer in it. M-theory for example has people trying to drop out left and right because it may be a total waste. For a scientist he may be having a panic attack.

Something that was really "frightening" for some scientist earlier was the Higgs Boson not being found for much longer than they thought it would be. If they had not found it part of what they based QM on would have been invalid. But they did find it but the properties were different than what they thought. The risk is that we have theoretical sciences that have to be verified by experimental scientists. Until that point that theory would be under "panic" especially if the results are contrary.

Though I think it is good to note that Kaku is another sensationalist that likes to make a name for himself. He uses hot button words and appears in many videos and sold many books. But the context that Godnotgood tried to put it was incorrect.

I didn't. The author of the video did via the title: 'The collapse of physics as we know it'

 

[godnotgod]

I hope I don't miss the answer!

Go check this link: Does the universe need intelligence to order it? | Page 59 | ReligiousForums.com

 

[savagewind]

Three kinds I see.

I think the world should be as it is (or will be)
I don't care what the world should be.
I see the world as it is.

Which one is most like a baby?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I hope I don't miss the answer!

Well, for one thing Zen is the most non-mystical Buddhist school. I could go, but I haven't the time or energy to try and sort out somebody else's muddle and misconceptions.
If you seriously want to understand Zen they the way to do it is to go and practice seriously with a Zen school for a couple of years. What we don't need is somebody regurgitating Zen cliches out of context in order to sound clever ( leaving aside the fact that there is no obvious connection to the idea of a cosmic consciousness thingy ).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Which one is most like a baby?

Please just tell us, these riddles are tiresome and pointless.

 

[savagewind]

It's so easy it isn't a riddle. Haha My first moning laugh from Spiny. Thank you! Was that condenscending? I wouldn't know because it is just IS.

A baby sees the world as it is. Jesus says that to enter into the Kingdom of God a person MUST become as a child is.
What godnotgod is saying is that thought about the world, which a child does not have, is getting in the way of the real view.

 

[godnotgod]

Scientifically? One would have to figure out what requires intelligence and what doesn't. What qualifies as intelligence ect.

So if we stick to Logic, Reason, and Analysis, the tools of science, how can these be utilized to test for intelligence? 'Qualifies as intelligence' means forming a concept about what comprises intelligence and then overlaying it onto the phenomenal world, and then testing. But already, one is creating an arbitrary and limited model of intelligence, when the intelligence of the universe may be far more than such a model.

 

[godnotgod]

It's so easy it isn't a riddle. Haha My first moning laugh from Spiny. Thank you! Was that condenscending? I wouldn't know because it is just IS.

A baby sees the world as it is. Jesus says that to enter into the Kingdom of God a person MUST become as a child is.
What godnotgod is saying is that thought about the world, which a child does not have, is getting in the way of the real view.

Not just that, but a child's mind is not conditioned yet by society in passing moral judgments via discrimination. It does not split reality into a duality of good and evil. Krishnamurti calls this mind 'innocency', a state we slowly lose touch with as we become socially indoctrinated by religion, government, parents, etc. Buddha calls it 'Original Mind', and Taoism 'The Uncarved Block'.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You said:
But the context that Godnotgood tried to put it was incorrect.

So that.

The context was that science itself was up in arms about its confusion about the universe and freaking out over it. This was untrue.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It's not meant literally, but as a metaphor for the equations not only not working, but rendering meaningless gibberish.

The biggest problem in current physics is trying to figure out what the fundamental differnece is between the laws of the universe that govern the very large, the very small and the middle. Why they are different and if there can be a unified field theory or "the theory of everything". I think legion said it once best, all theories are wrong. Nothing is perfect in terms of matching because it is just a model. But that also makes it interesting. It doesn't make in meaningless gibberish but does show that we have more to learn. The equations only function in their range which suggests that there is a curve to the laws of physics.

So maybe the opening question is phrased inappropriately. Perhaps it should have been something like: 'Is there an underlying intelligence to the universe?', which does not imply an anthropomorphic controlling entity. In Taoist terms, Tao IS that underlying intelligence in a way that creates and nurtures all of life, but never dominates it, nor interferes with it. In Tao, everything comes out of it, and everything returns to it.

Great Tao is like a boat that drifts;
It can go this way; it can go that.
The ten thousand creatures owe their existence to it and it does not disown them;
Yet having produced them, it does not take possession of them.
Makes no claim to be master over them,
And asks for nothing from them.
Therefore it may be called the Lowly.
The ten thousand creatures obey it,
Though they know not that they have a master;
Therefore it is called the Great.
So too the Sage just because he never at any time makes a show of greatness
In fact achieves greatness.

Tao te Ching, Ch 34

Then no I don't believe it is "required". At least not by any evidence presented so far.

It's from direct seeing, without thought, into the nature of things. It is not belief.

whatever you say.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What godnotgod is saying is that thought about the world, which a child does not have, is getting in the way of the real view.

Well from a Buddhist point of view conceiving about the world is certainly an obstacle to seeing it as it really is - though there is a world of difference between saying it and realising it.
But look at all the conceiving that is going on in this thread! Look at how attached people are to their views, beliefs and assumptions, whether it be "cosmic consciousness" or "God" or the "divine". Look at all the intellectual baggage that goes with such ideas!

 

[savagewind]

I have something. It is evidence that at least some people know subconsciously (for sure) that the Taoist "Uncarved Block" or the Buddha "Original Mind" or Jesus' "Child" is necessary to reach a righteous conclusion. How many World leaders seek the opinion of other people which the other people are not of "this" world like psychics, mystics and religious leaders. It's so dunb so why do they do it? Isn't it because they don't want to stop thinking themselves? They are scared so they get someone else to see reality for them. But they won't admit it can't be done. It can't be done by another because someone else would be adding another point to what is really only ONE point. See? Each person and the universe is one. One must see it for themselves. Most or all people have probably seen it. They didn't know or they didn't like it maybe.