Is Reality "Intelligent"?

I know this ain’t my conversation, and I certain don’t agree with Write’s Math as God implications - but it seems to me natural fractals explain that.

Folds within folds of cumulative harmonic complexity flowing down the stream of time.

Human society is a reflection of natural mammalian societies, who in turn reflect earlier trends in animal behavior.

Since we all biological beings do have roughly same needs and limitation. Commerce and world trade follows the same natural patterns - humans have simply been able to add all sorts of new window dressing upon it.

Which, if you think about it, can be abstracted back to the simplest biological entities.

Roger Penrose discusses Bohmian Mechanics.

This may be of interest.
Andy Fletcher
Science Speaker in 280+ Schools in 43 Countries at Life, The Universe & Everything (2002–present)Sep 26

What can mathematics tell us about the nature of the universe?
The mystery of Math. Here’s what a few smart guys think:
Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner: …the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious in that there is no rational explanation for it.

Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman: Why nature is mathematical is a mystery… The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle.
Galileo: The book of nature is written in mathematical language.
Roger Penrose (Oxford): The more deeply we probe the fundamentals of physical behaviour, the more that it is very precisely controlled by mathematics. The mathematics that we find is not just of a direct calculational nature; it is of a profoundly sophisticated character, where there is subtlety and beauty …

And here is a bit of that elegance in the Pythagorean Theorem:
3² + 4² = 5²
10² + 11² + 12² = 13² + 14²

And here is the most beautiful equation of all:
image

Humans invented the symbolism and the grammar of mathematics, but we discovered that the universe is written in the language of mathematics. We have no idea why. It just is.

And math reveals the secrets of the universe to us; Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity told us that the universe had a starting point of space and time, something we did not suspect, did not initially believe, and for many, still do not want to believe.
The physics of the universe appeared courtesy of Big Bang, along with spacetime.
Where the math came from, is a mystery. Quantum mechanics is just math that tells us how the universe works. Where did QM come from? It is a mystery.

IMO, math is an extension of LOGIC, the natural interaction of relational values (potentials)

And once again this delightful presentation by Roger Antonsen.

When you see how the spacetime geometry is able to express itself and just as we are able to represent natural phenomena with mathematics, nature is able to represent mathematics with natural expressions in many ways.

There is an equation between human symbolic maths representing natural mechanics and natural mechanics representing generic mathematics.

And that leads to a recognition that (generic) mathematics is the language of the universe and therefore deserves at least the assignment of “quasi-intelligence.”

I missed this one earlier. It made me think of the Beatles Magical Mystery Tour album. Music theorists recognized types of music things, things i don’t know the names of, and neither did the Beatles. They weren’t classically trained. They didn’t pick chords and forms from the big book of music, they just played what felt right. Some called it musical genius, or natural talent. Some people can pick up the rhythms of the universe just by listening.

1 Like

Interesting. I remember reading about something that happened to John Lennon after the beatles were at legendary status. A fan camped out at his villa, and one day when john was leaving the fan came up to him (boy those were the days) and asked him what some song really meant, I am the Walrus I think it was. So he’s thinking there’s some deep profound meaning,and John replies basically, no real meaning, we just made up some great sounding words and set it to a nice tune. I guess that falls under Sometimes a rose is just a rose.

I found this one had too many technical terms to make sense of it. Not being able to hear the questions didn’t help. But, youtube delivered a good suggestion again.

The QM stuff is good, and I especially liked the Krishnamurti stuff. After saying we can’t break the universe into parts and build it back up, he solves the problem of “what do we do” by saying we also can’t sense our thoughts or directly observe the “programming” of our minds. So, what we need is each other, we need to observe our own senses doing what they do, and have others who can help us, just a small group is all you need. Then we uncover the intrinsic behaviors and cultural conditioning that keep us stuck in our unhealthy patterns.

This excellent series of interviews will show the brilliant mind of Roger Penrose. He views the properties of the universe in a completely different way than the average street philosopher…like myself.

WOW, mine eyes have seen the coming of Mathematics!

And if you liked that, try this insight of the condition that existed prior to the BB.

Penrose: "without a clock the universe doesn’t know how big it is ",
i.e… a clock measures “temporal distance” (duration)

Which seems to agree with my own perspective that prior to the BB there was a “timeless, dimensionless, permittive condition”.

I’m not buying it, even from the great RP. His argument that math exists independently from us amounts to I really really want it to be that way because it’s so good at what it does. But he provides the way to dispute himself with his discussion of the Greeks. If math was out there to be discovered, why didn’t they themselves discover special relativity? The math behind it is out there to be discovered just by thinking about it. It’s not a matter of technology. In fact, what IMHO is going on is math is a human created technique, that can be built upon to the nth degree, that can then be used to describe the world very very accurately. It only seems to be a platonic thing because it’s been around so long, and yes, humans are incredibly smart and have developed it so incredibly. But it’s still just a human creation.
Think about numbers. RP kind of mentioned this. But say the number 2. That’s not a thing, not even a platonic thing. It’s the result of a process, namely counting. We do something over and over, and label the result with a name, like 2. So I always get a kick out of when someone wonders how big is infinity. There’s no such thing. It’s just the counting process that never ends. Anywho, thanks for sharing the videos.

1 Like

I believe the Greeks already recognized mathematics as the “language of the Universe”.

Galileo famously stated that our Universe is a “grand book” written in the language of mathematics.

All of modern science rests on the shoulders of the intellect and prior knowledge of mathematical functions passed on from the Greeks. What you are asking is way too sophisticated for those days and the repression by religious sects. But religion saw it as a threat to the assignment of “Agency”.

But inherent knowledge of mathematical values and functions are not exclusive to humans at all.
The natural world is founded on generic mathematical relational values and “orderly” functional processes of these values, such as exponential functions like the Fibonacci sequence.

Natural selection itself is based on mathematical principles of evolving efficiency and survivability.

Almost all predators use triangulation to catch prey. Maybe they don’t consciously know this, but they use it and we are not talking about human symbolized codification of mathematical laws.

We are talking about the essence of the “way things work”
A brainless, neuronless slime mold uses subtraction to arrive at the shortest path to food.
All of nature is built on mathematical laws, because mathematics is the functional language of Logic and the Universe itself is a logical object.
If it weren’t it would cease to exist.

Read Chaos theory and you’ll see that matter is based on mathematical patterns that self-organized from the available potentials present in the dynamic energy of the earliest energy plasma state of the universe.

What can be more mathematical than the Table of Elements?

This is what Bohm called the mathematical “Enfolded or Implicate Order” which becomes expressed as the measurable and codifiable "Unfolded or Explicate Order.

Human maths are a human creation based on observed natural functions and codified with human symbolic representation of natural relational values.

Was there ever a time when 1 + 1 did not result in 2 , regardless how you want to represent that symbolically or represent that at all?

The discovery of the mathematical essence of the universe is man’s greatest discovery in history, bar none.

What I don’t understand is why there needs to be doubt about this.
Is this resistance an intellectual relic of belief in creator gods?

What is it about inherent generic mathematical processes that is peculiarly human and did not exist until we came along and gave it a name?

I always thought that if you could demonstrate the truth of a proposition with repeated proofs that would confirm the truth of that proposition.

Yes, it is the result of a mathematical process humans have named counting . Lots of animals can count . Knowing that one quantity is “more” than another quantity is a rudimentary form of counting. No numbers, just cognition of a mathematical truth that one quantity is more than another “lesser” quatity. Fundamentally that is all mathematics is . Humans just like to play with numbers.

Ask if the mathematics of aerodynamical laws of lift do not apply to birds, just because humans “invented” (copied) the aeroplane?

But many feel a need to make it more because fundamentally we humans are as self-conceited and arrogant as can be imagined. It’s always all about us.

My philosopher pal Paul Mealing wound up putting it quite succinctly:

But, relevant to your missive, he got very philosophical at the end, commenting that why simple life might be widespread in the Universe, complex life leading to civilisations is probabilistically low. He then made a point I’ve made many times myself – it’s only ‘We who give the Universe meaning’.

John Wheeler: ‘The Universe gave birth to consciousness and consciousness gives meaning to the Universe.’

I’m still wrestling with how to respond without offending, because to me it’s downright offensive, and seems to me the quintessential essence of this Abrahamic Arrogance and self absorption, that I speak of.

How could math not work ?!?
The universe has to be exquisitely fine-tuned to itself, with an internal consistency, or it would fall part.

Math is what inevitably comes out when reflecting on the built in consistencies that the universe obviously possesses.

It’s more an Human Ego Thing, as the long history Write shared with us illustrates. All those thinkers over simplified and over assessed their own understanding, and further learning has always shown the natural world to be vastly more complex, interwoven, and consistent on a fundamental level than the human intellect is capable of imagining.

Has nothing to do with being fine-tuned for our benefit because we happened to be the species that could take it all in, and remember, and record and absorb the enormity.

Until a few observant and introspective souls can figure out,
I am the eye’s of the universe.

I am a thread in the tapestry of Earth’s Evolutionary Pageant, and this moment is mine, and it is good.

In the end, that’s about me and not the universe, but it’s a great poem to live with, a great thought to imagine the drive of Life with, given all the correct breaks, to gain the capability to finally recognize and contemplate the universe that created itself - that is who we are, and all we are, sadly too few recognize as much.

Excuse the excursion . . .

Is Reality “Intelligent” - like everything else it depends on the frame of reference you set up.

Define your reality?
Define your intelligence?
Then compare.
:v:t2: :wink:

1 Like

You really need to stop and think this through more carefully.

If we take away human maths Nature would not be affected in the least, but if a thousand years later we would invent human maths based on observation of natural phenomenal processes, our maths would be exactly the same as they are now.

However, if we take away the natural mathematical functional processes in Nature, there would be utter chaos and if a thousand years later we tried to find any regularity that could be codified in Nature, we could not invent mathematics based on observation at all.

Most of human “inventions” are really discoveries of natural processes.

Humans did not invent mathematics. Humans “discovered” the mathematics of Natural phenomena and "codified " it with human symbolic representations, just as bacteria use chemical interactive “values” to communicate via “quorum sensing” and generate “action potentials”, a mathematically relational physical function that can be found everywhere in nature.

Just look up the definition of the natural phenomenon that humans have dubbed with the term “chirality”. You will find a bunch of mathematical equations of naturally occurring “actions” and “interactions” that are inherently and abstractly mathematical in essence. David Bohm called it the “Implicate Order”.

I can’t tell what “it” you referring to.

Don’t know why that says >write4u, I’m responding to Lausten

The argument whether math is a human invention or discovery.

It seems to me, close to the philosophical argument that the universe is pointless without humans to think about it.

I’m incapable of putting myself into the center stage of reality like that, even if my human brain is more fantastical than any other fixture in the universe.

Like the silly notion: “I think, therefore I am” that humanity, in its infinite arrogance, has been gushing about since Descartes played with the notion of imagining himself as the only thing that actually exists, four freak’n hundred years ago.

I much prefer the more sober, down to Earth, realization that I AM, therefore I’m capable of thinking.

I don’t think that’s it at all. I’ve tried responding to your Descartes comments, but you keep saying what you said the first time you brought it up. No doubt, the traditional narrative is about how the universe conspired to create us and put us at the apex. But that has been challenged for a thousand years now. Math is very much part of that challenge, as was the develop of languages that can be taught to masses of people, slowly shifting the center of power from hierarchies that assume divine guidance, to the ability to convince majorities based on evidence on logic.

I don’t see statements about how we create meaning for ourselves to have anything to do with us being the center of the story. It’s the opposite, it’s saying that we, individually, are insignificant to the forces of billions of years. Those lead to survival strategies and give us procreation skills and not much else, and those skills are horribly flawed. I’m not sure how other animals perceive that stuff, but since we can learn about ourselves by observing nature, that proves we are not the center.

A principle of science is that the laws of nature are consistent throughout time and space. Math is the codification of that. How is that “close to the argument the universe is pointless without us”?

I keep trying to say it better and will keep striving till someone hears it.

Lausten,
I’m not sure what you’re asking, so I’m left guessing.

Is it my complaint that philosophers haven’t absorbed Evolution’s Pageant and lessons much beyond a superficial (postcard*) understanding.
(Which is different from a visceral-understanding, where the light goes on and ‘recognition’ becomes ‘understanding’. For example, I know the CERN atom smasher works, but I’ll be damned if I can grasp it, too big, too complex, too much precision required to operate correctly. Still there it is, so okay, I can’t deny it. But it’s only a postcard understanding, it hasn’t clicked in my mind. )
{*Heck the more I learn about it, the more impossible it seems to me. Yet, there it is.}

You disagree and tell me many philosophers acknowledge Evolution and that we humans are evolved out of the primate branch of animals. Sure, everyone knows that, but then they move on and climb right back into, . . .

I would love for you to share links to talks from a philosopher about processing the fact of our animal origins into our own being and behaviors via brain and mind. To discuss human ego, and the curious struggles between our flesh’s desires & impulse vs. the mind’s rules & resolutions, from an evolutionary perspective.

I can tell you one thing, such a speaker wouldn’t invoke: “I think, therefore I am” unless it were to then totally dismantle the self-centered notion - then to inspire listeners to consider the interactions of creatures all the way back to six-hundred million years ago, and appreciate how the generations along with the act of living upon a dynamic changing planet honed those creatures through not just through attrition, but through constantly refining their awareness and consciousness and passing on those winnings to their children, and so on.

Each according to their originating plan & circumstance, all of it being maintained and refined with time and driven by Earth’s changing resources and limitations.

It’s creatures interacting with their environment that created ever more complex consciousness!

Consciousness is an interaction, creatures constantly competing against hunger & predators, elements & landscapes, always intent on making it through another day by constantly refining sensing, processing, command & control, manipulatory abilities.

From an Earth Centrist perspective, it’s self-evidence there is no consciousness without creature interaction with each other and their environment. The notion of primal matter and energy out in the cosmos having consciousness is pure science fiction without the slightest evidence to indicate a there, there. It requires an Earth to set that stage of reality.

The philosophers realm, “I think, therefore I am” is a reflection of being confined within the world of one’s thoughts as though we were isolated entities - worse the whole point is to imagine away the body, for argument sake.

A genuine appreciation for Evolution makes the exercise too silly (or insulting) to humor, because our body

Having a deep clarity for the Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide, is like a benchmark. A clear boundary between our self-interested, self-obsessed individual selves, and the world we are embedded within. It also helps explain the self. Your thoughts really and truly are the inside reflection of this evolved creature body you’re inhabiting. And your body is the lucky product of tens of thousands of parents down one particular unique history.

Our thoughts are the sum total of all our days, and your body is the product of billions of years worth of Earth’s evolution, a strand in the tapestry of Earth’s nearly never-ending Story.

Please show me where some philosophers reflect on evolution and the human body on that level.

This is a tad long and rambling, but concise takes time and this has been constructed in bits and pieces over past day. Unfortunately wrestling with this stuff may be tops on my list, but physical reality has other demands that take priority.

I’ve read of some scientists who are starting to dispute that “consistent throughout time and space” - but I’ll stay out of that and say okay, fair enough, it’s what I’ve always been taught.

Perhaps I could have done a better job of wording that.

I wasn’t implying math was pointless, I was saying that are argument:
" Whether math is a human invention or a discovery?"
is a pointless, dog-chasing-tail argument.

As for the universe being pointless without humans in it, that’s not my take, tad too self-centered, but Paul P. Mealing does give one things to think about.

I have.

But, I was thinking it might be good for me come up with a summary of them.