Coming late to this interesting thread. I’ve always wondered why we ask questions like “is reality intelligent”. I think it’s only because we’ve been trained by thousands of years of religion maybe, that there’s a difference between us and the universe. The universe is stuff, we’re stuff, what makes us think there’s an actual difference between the universe stuff and our stuff? I like Carl Sagan’s idea…we’re one way the universe thinks about itself. Maybe we need to stop thinking about “things” and start thinking about processes. I like to sum the whole thing up with this: god is a verb (not a noun). And each of us is just a miniscule little slice of the process/the verb/the action unfolding.
1 Like
For me the continuum of Space/Time indicates Existence to be self-referential . And almost nobody ever wants to talk about the latent potential of absolute infinitude; The nothing that is the singularity of of everything. (Reality-as-it-actually-is).
Though the bondage of relativity bound thinking is well understood by yogis, arhats, and those steeped in Tao.
" What is reality ? " asks the teacher.
"Reality is reality " answers the student.
Reality has no persona, no mental, no spirit, no morality
If Universe has a spirit, a meaning, it is the one, human beings and the whole of intelligent beings give it by theirs actions
2 Likes
Reality-as-it-actually-is is not actually parsed into an inside and outside however. Which means the actions and intelligence of beings are no more or no less significant than space/time or antimatter.
The infinitude of Reality’s singularity lending its nature to the relative infinities.
Interesting topic.
As @citizenschallengev4 mentioned, the OP can be interpreted as Intelligent Design.
Why do some people arrive to this conclusion and others at a different conclusion?
Because it is not intentionally designed. Self-organization of complex systems is via mathematical guiding principles that create the “designs” which are more properly addressed as "patterns.
So what we can actually prove is that reality consists of emergent self-organizing physical patterns in accordance with quasi-intelligent mathematical guiding principles.
This can be tested and falsified. This interpretation meets scientific rigor.
The problem with all arguments is that they are based on two extremes.
a) The causal agency is intelligent and that is why reality appears to have been designed by a sentient and motivated intelligence.
b) The causal agency is a stochastic process of trial and error which eventually results in a form of organized order that appears to be intelligent in essence.
But there is a third option that is seldom addressed:
c) The causal agency is an implacable mathematical form of logic that guides all physical relationships and that’s why reality appears to be designed by a sentient and motivated intelligence.
Thus:
a) cannot be verified and/or falsified (creationism)
b) can only be partially verified and/or falsified. (evolution via natural selection)
Whereas:
c) can be both verified and falsified. (Self-organization via logical mathematical guiding principles)
Okay I can get behind this from a logical perspective …. Except your third point.
Math.
If math were to reveal to us profound materialistic revelations of the universe then it would become the absolute truth.
Kinda like geometry (an idea in the mind) gives us the Wheel (a physical object).
But Because we’re not there yet, it remains a theory.
This is our sticking point. I speak of probabilities. You speak of absolutes and possibilities
Maybe it’s a different thinking processes we humans have which lead us to different conclusions.
The answers to existential questions should be simple, elegant and easy to be understood kinda like Einstein’s most famous equation.
If a lot of probability is involved that means that we have to do some interpretation.
But also, I can argue in another topic that it’s a lot better that we can’t know for sure (this is also a fact) because if we did, it might have severe consequences for our species.
I should open that other topic at some point but I gotta write a draft first.
IMHO, there are no absolute truths. There are probabilities. There are some, a few, a little, etc, but no all or everyone/everything.
Uncertainity is the human condition. So, yes, it’s all interpretation. I don’t know why you would think existential questions would have an easy explanation. It’s up to each of us to choose a path, not be handed a formula.
1 Like
I can’t deny what either of you are saying and yes we have to choose our own paths.
1 Like
What would you accept as proof that Universal mathematics is the “guiding equation” in the chronology of relational physical interactions.?
You see, mathematics are logical and therefore “quasi-intelligent” in function. And that answers the OP question.
Reality is the physical expression of mathematical patterns. As such it qualifies for the symbolic identification of “quasi-intelligent.”
IOW, the observed patterns have a logical foundation and mathematics is the language of logical processes.
Logic and Mathematics
Logic and mathematics are two sister-disciplines , because logic is this very general theory of inference and reasoning, and inference and reasoning play a very big role in mathematics, because as mathematicians what we do is we prove theorems, and to do this we need to use logical principles and logical inferences. Nov 9, 2016
Not really. The aspects of reality that we can observe can be approximately described by various mathematical tricks that very smart people have come up with. And those tricks change over time - think of the progression from Kepler to Newton to Einstein. But regardless of how complicated, they’re still just tricks to handle the complexity, not a reflection of how things actually are. I remember a Calculus teacher I had in college. He started the class by saying that most of the stuff he’ll teach us is textbook stuff, not the real thing that scientists use. They use statistics, numerical analysis, etc. i.e. tools of approximation.
1 Like
[quote=“cuthbertj, post:75, topic:8045”]
Not really. The aspects of reality that we can observe can be approximately described by various mathematical tricks that very smart people have come up with.
You are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Human mathematical mechanics are just fine. It is our observation of universal “relational values” that lack precision. That is why human mathematics are approximate.
The universe itself has no such observational limitations.
There are no tricks in mathematics. There are shortcuts… difference.
But you are right our observational abilities are limited so we often must guess at some universal extant “input” values and functions. But that is a human limitation, not a universal one.
The universe’s mathematics are perfect because it can only function via its relational values and mathematically functional processes and all we need is to look around and see what its internally applied mathematics has created.
Tegmark (physicist) remarked that almost all scientists admit that the universe has some mathematical properties. He proposes that the Universa has only mathematical properties, Not human maths but generic logical mathematics based on generic “relational values” and logically functional processes.
(value) Input → logical function (process) → (value ) Output
What are the basic (generic) logical processes in mathematics?
They are: addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division .
The very fact that we are able to recognize and codify some of the values and mathematical processes in nature is proof that spacetime has mathematical properties. I see no possible argument against that logic.
And those tricks change over time - think of the progression from Kepler to Newton to Einstein. But regardless of how complicated, they’re still just tricks to handle the complexity, not a reflection of how things actually are.
That is true, but that is not a limitation of the universal mathematical properties, it was an original human shortcoming.
The universe did not change its mathematics because Einstein corrected Newton. It is an example of humans correcting their initial observation of locally prevailing conditions
I remember a Calculus teacher I had in college. He started the class by saying that most of the stuff he’ll teach us is textbook stuff, not the real thing that scientists use. They use statistics, numerical analysis, etc. i.e. tools of approximation.
Yes, it always comes down to human limitations, never to the universe using mathematical tricks.
The problem is really a human one. Humans are prone to anthropomorphize EVERYTHING! Humans even made God in their image! How absurd is that?
Generic mathematics exists independent of humans. Many animals use mathematics, even if they don’t realize they are using mathemaicas without knowing it.
Ever watched a bee’s waggle dance. She is '“talking” bee mathematics. Sun position, distance , direction, and when the workers follow the directions they adjust for the position of the sun and make course correction every specified distance in the dance.
I am constantly reminding people that we do not create reality, we create our reality but that does not count at all.
Every living organism that ever lived created its own reality, but nothing ever changed even as 90 % of all living organisms are now extinct.
Reality did not change because they are gone.
This is why most human theories can never be declared absolutely true. But that is not the fault of universal mathematics, it is the shortcoming of human observation, that can only approximate the relational values from our subjective POV.
Our theoretical mathematics is perfect. It is our applied mathematics that are approximate and for most intents and purposes that is sufficiently close even if they are not an exact description of universal mathematics. Don’t forget that in a dynamic environment conditions change every instant and in the absence of all pertinent data it is impossible to be perfect, except the universe itself.
Sure there are and they are shortcuts - the only difference is in how you’re going to define that word “Trick”
Science magic tricks look like magic— an effect with a secret—but that secret is based on a scientific principle or concept that makes it look like a magic trick .
It’s not absurd at all.
After all, it’s our human living experiences with the aid of our human mind, that created those gods to begin with.
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:78, topic:8045”]
It’s not absurd at all.After all, it’s our human living experiences with the aid of our human mind, that created those gods to begin with.
It is absurd. Fact is that God is a creation of human hubris.
It is the same as an ant saying the universal creator is an ant.
In the grander scope of things, humans are no more important than ants. Every assumption of special status in the universe is just hubris.
Just look how we abuse our responsibility as “caretakers of the earth”.
We are a plague on the earth, compared to the honey bees that help produce food for 70% of life on earth and maintain the flowering plants, the most beautiful artistic creations in nature .
- If I were to symbolize a creator/caretaker it would be the honeybee. Just look at the meticulous dedication they kept a perfectly sterile environment, until humans came along and destroyed their immune systems with our chemical destruction of the natural symbiotic balance between pollinators and flowering plants.
- List item
Are you saying those two statements are not equivalent?
Where does human hubris reside?