Is Reality "Intelligent"?

Science and Technology
21

tanny, from what I have read, it would seem we are on the exact same page.

I’m reaching for an understanding of “intelligence” that is beyond the idea that intelligence is a property of a particular thing. An example might be space. Space is a universal property of reality, it doesn’t belong to any particular entity. There is not “my space” and “your space” but a single universal phenomena which unites all things. The laws of physics are another example.
For several years now I have been using the term "quasi-intelligent" to identify how the Laws of Physics functions.
So your point is taken that evolution is not intelligent in the sense of being the product of the intention of a particular thing, such as a God. I’m not proposing an actor, but a phenomena inherent in reality, like space, or the laws of physics. I agree intelligence is probably not the best word for such a phenomena, I just don’t yet have a better word.
I am a fan of Max Tegmark, who proposes that reality has an underlying mathematical (logical) essence. Reality consists of self-forming patterns of various densities, i.e. vaporous, liquid, solid. He proposes that ultimately, reality consists of "values" interacting and processed in accordance with related mathematical (algebraic) "functions". And with the self-organization of complex patterns, creating "emergent" qualities over and above the sum of the parts.

A perfect example is found in H2O which has 3 “emergent” qualities dependent on temperature and density of pattern organization.

This functional chronology does not need intentional motivation. It is deterministic in that a specific input is causal to a specific output depending on the relevant Natural Laws. The underlying mathematics are axiomatic and quantifiable. The universe itself is an evolving dynamical pattern.

Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) is a current model under consideration by the scientific community.

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

There is evidence [1] that at large scales CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.


IMO, Chaos theory describes this and actually explains the entire evolution of spacetime from the Inflationary Epoch to the present. Reality consists of self-organizing, self-assembling, and self-referential patterns, which over time, evolved into a hierarchy of self-aware organisms and ultimately into motivated intelligence.

An example of this is the “eye” which started as a light-sensitive patch and evolved into the most remarkable survival mechanism of awareness of self in relation to the environment.

Quasi intelligence is already observable in the lowly Slime mold which can solve mazes by means of subtraction, a mathematical function!

Bacteria employ “quorum sensing” to communicate and decide when sufficient mathematical numbers are present to trigger virulence (the earliest functional hive mentality)

22
And I guess, we all want to figure out this existence. - didirius
Well, maybe not everyone ?
On which basis are we describing a set of laws which is different from ours? Keep in mind that the main premise of the laws we have is to be the same everywhere. And so far this seems not incorrect yet. We would need a understanding of the physics on how laws of physics came to be in the first place. So that this underlying law we can build on remains unchanged. Without the understanding on such a bedrock law on how laws work and came to be, the most appropriate assumption would be pure chance anyway even without multiverses to fill this infinite loop . Pure chance so to speak is my placekeeper for anything untill more is known.
What if Universal Constants were a slightly different value. What if the gravitational constant were higher. How would that affect the formation of planets, stars. ..etc . (I saw some show years ago talking about this.0

So is it by chance that there was only one universe with the right numbers to produce “us”?

Or over an infinite amount of tries (either serially or co-existing) “this” one hit … (but was inevitable)

And all tries are/were a part of “Reality” (reality is bigger than us - I know, debatable without specific definitions)

 

 

1 Like
23
Theists choose one authority, atheists another, but the process is essentially the same. -- tanny
I lost you at this point. You were searching something that was not an entity, something like the laws that create space that things move around in. Something that has no purpose, no reason to choose one option over another, but moves in the direction of survival, and then the more complex emotions and reasoning we experience grow out of that.

If that’s what you are looking for, the process of making memes and rituals to pass on a few specific values and ideas has some merit, but when those become the goal, that is where atheism and theism branch out, at quite a tangent. The other thing theism lacks, is mechanisms for creativity. It’s the opposite, curiosity is discouraged. I could come up with more ways the two are similar, but I wouldn’t call them “essentially the same”.

24
If you are an ancient sage and you realistically determine that most people will only be capable of the simplistic slogans, perhaps you conclude that’s better than nothing? -- tanny
This is an interesting one, and usually shy away from it because it has an air of assuming people are stupid. I don't think that's what you are doing. I'm no genius and I often wonder what it's like to have to deal with someone like me if you are really smart. It must have been 100 times worse in a more ignorant world. It's has been said that religion was necessary to get us through those times when we would have all just killed each other. I think there were better ways, even back then, but there are only rare examples when communities really worked together with no threat from a deity.
25
“the laws of physics” – to expand the “The laws of the universe” – are tuned just right for the eventual evolution of us.
Isn't it more sensible to think in terms of us being a product of the "laws of the universe" .

What if those properties were ever so slightly different? Then we wouldn’t be here, nothing complex about that.

What about standing in awe of the Earth and process that created us?

 

Too often I get the feeling people subconsciously think the process depends on what our great minds are thinking about it. As though we deserve absolutely clarity or get to define it.

 

 

26
I lost you at this point.
Yes, pointing out the similarities between theist culture and atheist culture tends to be rather unpopular in both of those cultures. :-) Which could be why we of Troll Culture say such things... :-)
27
This is an interesting one, and usually shy away from it because it has an air of assuming people are stupid. I don’t think that’s what you are doing.
Yes, I'm just stating the obvious, that most of us are not sages. If there are sages, and if they do have some deep insight in to the nature of things, then if they wish to share those insights they will inevitably face the challenge of translating their understandings in to more widely accessible language.

It seems possible to me that the sages were pointing to something real, but the language they chose to explain it, while being very successful in engaging a mass audience for centuries, is now starting to fall apart in the modern world.

I’m not willing to assume that because the stories no longer work, that automatically equals them not pointing to something real.

 

28
You were searching something that was not an entity, something like the laws that create space that things move around in.
Yes to this part.
Something that has no purpose, no reason to choose one option over another, but moves in the direction of survival, and then the more complex emotions and reasoning we experience grow out of that.
Maybe to this part. I don't feel a need to immediately discard the possibility of intention and purpose. Maybe this example will help. To the civilizations of bacteria living in my body, I am the universe. I have intention and purpose, but that is not perceptible to the bacteria, given they are operating on such a different scale than the big picture of "me".

I’m not proposing reality itself has intention, as I obviously don’t know. I’m just personally not in a big rush to rule that out.

 

29
Which could be why we of Troll Culture say such things… -- tanny
I'm not sure what the smiley faces mean around this comment. It would be nice if you address it. You're welcome to post whatever you want, but I know when I'm being played.
30
I’m not sure what the smiley faces mean around this comment. It would be nice if you address it. You’re welcome to post whatever you want, but I know when I’m being played.
I'm just goofing around, and making fun of myself. I knew that saying certain things would annoy the audience, so I just had to say them. So I called myself a troll in acknowledgement of the game I was playing on myself. The smilies are me making peace with the limitations of my human condition.
31

 

I don’t feel a need to immediately discard the possibility of intention and purpose.
Nor any interest in actually exploring it.

 

What a disappointment you turned out to be.

Fine. have fun, troll away.

32

Oh my, any chance we could not take ourselves so very seriously? So I made a joke, and it fell flat. So I guess I’m not going to be on Saturday Night Live after all. Let’s all try to get over that if we can. :slight_smile:

33
Nor any interest in actually exploring it.
If I recall correctly, I was the one who started the thread on this subject. So I really have no idea what you're referring to here.
34
What a disappointment you turned out to be. -- CC
name calling, over sensitivity, seemingly deliberate misinterpretation of words, saying that others are overreacting. Checking a lot of boxes. Just stick to the topics, they were doing fine with that. At this point, I have to assume the intelligent design theme was the primary reason for coming here and the rest just dressed that up to get our attention. We'll see. Either there will be a lot of repetition, or who knows, another direction?
35
At this point, I have to assume the intelligent design theme was the primary reason for coming here and the rest just dressed that up to get our attention. We’ll see.
Or, if you keep on like this, maybe you won't.
Either there will be a lot of repetition, or who knows, another direction?
I have lots of directions. You haven't yet seen the tip of the iceberg.
36
I have lots of directions. You haven’t yet seen the tip of the iceberg.
What can I say Lausten, hand waving is hand waving.

There’s difference between exploration & playing disingenuous games.

 

 

37
Wow, that’s good.

That was some of the soundest far reaching first time posts I’ve seen around here.

38

Whether we zoom in or out into nature, there is far too much order in all that we can observe, so as to make the answer to your question a definitive YES.

39
heartnsoul said: Whether we zoom in or out into nature, there is far too much order in all that we can observe, so as to make the answer to your question a definitive YES.
Yes to what? A motivated Intelligent Design? There is another option, which is really much more plausible than any other explanation I have heard.

Nature (the Universe) is a mathematical object. This allows for all processes to be mathematically based and that produces a “quasi-intelligent” order, which is not a motivated but a Deterministic Design. The result is the same but makes an intelligent motivated agency superfluous and simplifies matters considerably.

40

One of the problems about talking about intelligence is that we’ve been trained to think of ourselves as separate from the universe (and somehow special). But we’re not. To paraphrase Carl Sagan - we’re one way the universe contemplates itself. Point being, I exhibit intelligence, you do, dogs do, insects do, etc. That’s the universe being intelligent.