Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Ouroboros]

I don't know what it is but aging physicists and mathematicians who have done excellent work in their youth seem to go off their trolley more often than people in other scientific fields. I've noticed this for a long time and wondered if it had something to do with them peaking in their career at a much younger age than folks in other fields.

LOL! I noticed that too. Actually, to me it seems like mathematicians are the ones going of the rockers the most with age.

 

[Yerda]

...- in all science, the trend has been towards exposing ever more extraordinary fine tuning needed for our existence. Not the other way around

Or we are finding we are adapted to a fine-tuned universe.

We have no idea what would be the case if any of the fundamental constants were different. If g, h, c, or Van der Walls force or the acid dissociation constants etc were different the universe might not exist. Or it might be unimaginably different. Who can say whether any of these things can even be altered?

Then there is the problem that if the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life, where is it all?

 

[Ouroboros]

Or we are finding we are adapted to a fine-tuned universe.

Yup. Agree. We are fine-tuned to the universe, rather than the other way.

We have no idea what would be the case if any of the fundamental constants were different. If g, h, c, or Van der Walls force or the acid dissociation constants etc were different the universe might not exist. Or it might be unimaginably different. Who can say whether any of these things can even be altered?

Agree again. There are certain constants that would alter our universe radically if they were different, but it's all based on our current very limited knowledge about how the universe works. Mathematically, things would collapse or expand too fast, and yada yada, but many of these ideas are based on physics some 10 years ago or perhaps what we have today. Today, we have issues with dark matter and energy, or black holes that are heavier or lighter than we expect, or stars that disappear, or ... there's a whole line of questions on the large scale, and then we go on the quantum scale. Somehow you can separate the spin (property) of a quark from itself and then recombine them again. It seems like we can create events that are influenced by future decisions. We can go on and on with these questions we have no answers for, so how can we with absolute certainty say that this parameter or that parameter must be exactly this or that value for everything to work together, when we don't know how everything work together yet? We just don't know (yet).

Then there is the problem that if the universe is fine-tuned for intelligent life, where is it all?

This is why I found the book Solaris by Stanislav Lem so interesting. It suggests that if there are intelligent life out there of different kind than ours, we might not be able to recognize it for what it is or even be able to have a meaningful dialogue with it. It will think and react based on a totally different set of rules, and will have a different history of experience to build upon. Perhaps we already have met other intelligent life but we just can't see it.

Recently they discovered that there's actual biological, living organisms in ice. Until that was discovered, we thought it to be impossible. One day we might discover life in space in a way we never thought of before.

I just hope I'm still around to read about it. It's exciting stuff.

 

[Sapiens]

LOL! I noticed that too. Actually, to me it seems like mathematicians are the ones going of the rockers the most with age.

I'd concur, the math geniuses seem to go earlier and more often.

 

[metis]

alter the universal constants infinitesimally- you don't even get space/time- no such thing as time and space for anything to happen in, far less sentient life to ponder it...

Did you ever consider the implications of quantum mechanics? Myriads of combinations well beyond our comprehension could possibly arise over even a short period of time. Even if the vast majority of combinations amount to not much of anything, all it takes is a minute fraction that might work, and viola!

you can stare at a bucket of sand for 100 billion trillion years, it's never going to get bored and develop thought, that has to be written in from the get go. by chance? perhaps, but the odds are far far less than one in a billion

I know some buckets of sand that are probably a lot more intelligent than some people I've known.

On the serious side, consciousness are patterned energy waves, and thus far there's been no detection of these waves coming from anything other than organic life. Try and give the moon an e.e.g. and let's see what you get. or maybe a pet rock will just do.

The point becomes that there's literally no way we find any evidence for cosmic consciousness, nor is there really any reason to jump to the conclusion that it exists. However, if one states they believe it exists as a mark of their faith, that's fine, but that's not science.

 

[metis]

It's true, without that mediation, the Earth would tumble chaotically, complex life on the surface would be impossible-

That's what Newton thought since his main formulation on this didn't quite work out, so he believed that God had to make up the difference. Einstein established otherwise, namely that math does work, thus not necessitating any deity to intervene.

The snag right now is with the Theory of Everything, and I believe the problem probably lies in trying to connect macro-matter with sub-atomic particles diced through quantum mechanics. The rules are so different between the two, but nevertheless some day some one might be able to come up with the formula. Something for me to work on over the weekend.

BTW, if you get a chance, go see "The Theory of Everything" at the movies. My wife and I saw it yesterday, and it is a definite must see. The acting goes beyond superb, and if the main actor doesn't win an Academy Award, Hollywood should be burned to the ground..

 

[Ouroboros]

I'd concur, the math geniuses seem to go earlier and more often.

It also reminds me of that American chess grand master, Bobby Fisher (I think), who went nuts.

And I can't help to think about one of my math teachers. She was brilliant, but very awkward. I had no problem with it... since I'm a bit of a geek myself, but man, she solved things on the whiteboard faster than we could copy it down. 10 steps ahead constantly. She had a watch that would beep every so often to remind her to change topics. She'd forget herself in the moment of solving. She was great. Unfortunately, I had to drop the class because of a water leak in our storage that had to take my full attention for some weeks.

 

[Ouroboros]

The snag right now is with the Theory of Everything, and I believe the problem probably lies in trying to connect macro-matter with sub-atomic particles diced through quantum mechanics. The rules are so different between the two, but nevertheless some day some one might be able to come up with the formula. Something for me to work on over the weekend.

I read something a while back that some scientists consider that it we can never find a single solution, or theory of everything. That the world is too complex to have just one view of it, and we have to settle for multiple (and probably conflicting) theories depending on what we're looking at. Somethin' like that.

BTW, if you get a chance, go see "The Theory of Everything" at the movies. My wife and I saw it yesterday, and it is a definite must see. The acting goes beyond superb, and if the main actor doesn't win an Academy Award, Hollywood should be burned to the ground..

I want to see that movie, and the one about Alan Touring as well (BBC, I think).

 

[metis]

I read something a while back that some scientists consider that it we can never find a single solution, or theory of everything. That the world is too complex to have just one view of it, and we have to settle for multiple (and probably conflicting) theories depending on what we're looking at. Somethin' like that.

Right now, there's I believe about 15 or so equations that if jammed together do work, but must physicists believed there should be a simple single equation, but now that appears to maybe not be the case.

I want to see that movie, and the one about Alan Touring as well (BBC, I think).

Please let me know what you think. I certainly don't believe you'll be disappointed. I want to see the touring one as wel, but there's another British production about the breaking of the NAZI code I want to see.

BTW, why do the Brits produce so many simply-made but intelligent movies, but all we can do here in the States is to produce non-brainers? Did you ever see "The King's Speech", for example? Who woulda thought that they could make a fantastic movie out of that topic? Or, one of my all-time favorites, "The Power of One" that dealt with the apartheid issue in South Africa.

 

[Ouroboros]

Right now, there's I believe about 15 or so equations that if jammed together do work, but must physicists believed there should be a simple single equation, but now that appears to maybe not be the case.

I thought relativity and quantum are the two domains that just won't play well together, but I could be wrong of course.

Please let me know what you think. I certainly don't believe you'll be disappointed. I want to see the touring one as wel, but there's another British production about the breaking of the NAZI code I want to see.

Maybe that's the same movie? Not sure.

BTW, why do the Brits produce so many simply-made but intelligent movies, but all we can do here in the States is to produce non-brainers?

I know, right!? We've been watching a bunch of British TV shows lately, and they're so cleverly made. Not the cut-n-paste drama we see so much of in US. In many of these shows you can't tell where it's going. A lot of surprises and twisted stories. My favorites so far are Foyle's War, Ripper Street, Sherlock, and MI5. But to be fair, the American House of Cards and Breaking Bad are pretty darn good.

Did you ever see "The King's Speech", for example? Who woulda thought that they could make a fantastic movie out of that topic? Or, one of my all-time favorites, "The Power of One" that dealt with the apartheid issue in South Africa.

I'll make a note of those and will look into them at some point.

 

[Yerda]

BTW, why do the Brits produce so many simply-made but intelligent movies, but all we can do here in the States is to produce non-brainers?.

Have you seen Primer? Or Pi? Both small budget and great.

 

[Ouroboros]

Have you seen Primer? Or Pi? Both small budget and great.

I've seen both. Both very great movies.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You said that chances don't increase but rather decrease, which is wrong. The chances increases with more universes. I'm just correcting you where you were wrong.

You misunderstand... I understand that the odds change with the amount of times you roll the dice, in your favour. My point was, if there were a billion sides, even after a billion rolls of the dice without your number coming up, and with more chance of your number coming up(especially if it was equal) that you would not put your house on it... the reason, it is still, for that roll of the dice, one in a billion. TOO MANY ways to come up wrong. Hence the fine tuning argument. Too many ways for the universe to develop wrongly.

But sure, yes, even after a billion tries there's a chance that you don't hit the winning number.

Right!

If you play on Lotto and play one billion lines, each one different than the other one, would your chances be higher than if you played only one line?


I'm not sure it says any universe is improbable, only that it's improbable to be the way ours is. It could have been many different ways but none of them would have been stable or such. Personally, I think they're wrong (yes, I sometimes think scientists are wrong ).


Well, I've seen many different attempts of calculating the probability of the universe we have but they all are made from assumptions and our limited knowledge of how the universe works. We still don't have an explanation for dark matter, dark energy, or full understanding gravity, and more. So to calculate any probability without the full knowledge is a shot in the dark.

But probably not far off the mark considering they will no doubt no more than you and me, and definitely more than me!

 

[Robert.Evans]

He has the code somewhere. Not sure, but there's randomness combined with some kind of selection, I think. Not sure.

Ta!

To show that randomness can be part of an algorithm and produce things. People have a huge stigma against randomness and chance (and monkeys).

Okay.... but you have to assume that randomness can do those things in the first place, as with all processes and mechanisms that we need in this universe, to first make it, and then make everything in it like us. Do you not think the huge stigma on random things bringing about something non-random is within us for a reason? God given?

--edit---

May I ask, do you believe there's a spirit (God, humans, soul, etc)? Is it alive?

Yes.

Is it part of this universe or separate?

Both.

If separate and alive, then how the universe is tuned is inconsequential since life is based on the spirit, not the construct.

One of the same.

On the other hand, if spirit is alive without universe,

Don't see it as separate. Don't see God as separate. Though to be fair, he is... haha

then life can exist in other forms, non-universe like forms,

Yes!

and the fine tuning argument that this universe is the only kind where life can exist in is wrong.

No, because it is still relative to this universe, and this one is physical, and can only work this way to produce stars planets life etc

On the other hand, if we only talk about biological life forms, not the soul/spirit part of it, we still consider that life is founded in the soul/spiritual part, not the biological, and in a universe where the biological life can't form, other forms could take place where the spiritual could inhabit. So again, the fine tuning argument doesn't fit the external spiritual life idea.

I see all things as higher-consciousness. It is explained in higher-physical forms, which eventually make lower-physical forms. Both are consciousness expressing themselves from the layer of consciousness before. It is the man that comes after the child. The question is, Where is the child? They are one of the same. In lower-physical terms (here), the child does not exist, but in higher-physical terms, it still does. But it takes up the same space, not separate to, but part of, like the child to the man.
The are science theories, not accepted, by people like Goswami, who says: ''Consciousness is the ground of all being, everything is consciousness, consciousness is all there is, and there is only one, other wise we have a paradox''.
That is easy to accept and tough.... tough because the ''one'' consciousness in infinite in size and has many others within it - yet is still one.

 

[Robert.Evans]

hence apparent chaos=


and if a gambler bets on the number 500,000,000- and he wins, you don't suspect the die is loaded?

That is the thing isn't it.... here on planet earth, that is exactly what we would expect, we would expect the dice to be loaded. In this physical realm, outragous things just don't happen.... unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, we have to assume something has put order into everything. Evolving consciousness explains that.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Pretty simple, hes' saying that if you roll a die and are able only to see sixes then the only result you'll see are sixes. Pretty accurate analogy for your condition.

It is easy to misuse retrospective statistics to confuse rather than illuminate, thanks for a prime example.

Why would you only see sixes? If the dice has a billion sides, each one has a number, and they are not all sixes. But we want a six, and a six is the only one that produces life.... hence the fine tuning of this universe

 

[Robert.Evans]

But if God is that intelligence/spirit behind the universe, then is God not alive?

Yes. But God's can die, hence the resurrection.

Can he only exist within our universe since this is presumed to be the only way life can exist? There's some contradiction here that needs to be resolved.

He doesn't exist ''within'' it as such. He is it, as he is all other universes and worlds. There 'physical' construct will be differnet to ours as all calculations will form one way or another. They may not even be detectable by us at all. This is our realm. Expanding consciousness replicates and divides and forms other higher-physical forms, one of them is ours, and can be seen as lower

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, because other numbers might "win" as well.

Live here on Earth evolved under the conditions that were present here, but that doesn't mean that life forms couldn't evolve under some differing conditions elsewhere.

Yes the point is, and you said it, ELSEWHERE.... but not here! That is the fine tuning argument in a nutshell I feel

 

[Robert.Evans]

Yes, and conditions could have been such that there was no possibility for any kind of life to evolve. But there is no requirement for life to evolve.

But it DID evolve... not just life, but an entire universe!

 

[Robert.Evans]

That might require the study of stochastic processes for a better understanding of emergent properties. It's beyond the scope of this thread to go into that. (And besides, I'm far too rusty to explain even the miserable understanding I once had.) Do nitrogen molecules need intelligent direction to behave in an organized fashion regarding temperature, volume & pressure? Some people might say yes, but I see statistical mechanics at work. I'm not telling you there cannot be intelligence guiding everything, only that it's not the most compelling explanation.

To play devil's advocate perhaps, I could say that it is a mere assumption that you have such faith in processes and mechanisms in the first place, without recourse to ask ''why'' would they do that in the first place. Complex things that we see need intelligence.... why do we not apply to everything until proven otherwise?