Entropy and the Conscious Universe

Entropy really destroys any notion of a natural universe. The universe has to be conscious and this is why many scientist are turning to some form of panpsychism. You have micropanpsychism and cosmopansychism which I think makes more sense. Micro is a bottom up approach to the universe and cosmo is a top down approach.

Minds Everywhere: 'Panpsychism' Takes Hold in Science

link

There's 2 important things that are impossible. It's impossible to lower the overall entropy of the universe and it's impossible for a universe like ours to exist naturally. This has been the bane of atheist scientist for years.

First let's talk about Boltzmann's Brains and why Boltzmann destroyed the notion that our universe can exist without conscious agency.

Simply put, when a system reaches thermal equilibrium, lower entropy states can fluctuate into existence. It's more likely that a brain will fluctuate into a universe rather than a universe like ours with our low entropy initial conditions. Roger Penrose puts it this way.

Since entropy increases over time, the early universe must have had much lower entropy. This means the Big Bang must have had an extraordinarily low entropy. But why would the primordial state of the universe have such low entropy?

Here's Dr. Craig's comments.

DR. CRAIG: This is the notion that this is simply put in as an initial condition. This is called the fine-tuning of the universe. Roger Penrose says that the initial low entropy condition of the universe has a probability of one chance out of ten to the power of ten to the power of a hundred and twenty-three – an incomprehensible number, and there isn’t any explanation for why the universe has this initial low entropy condition. It just begins that way. It’s put in at the moment of creation as an initial condition.

link

Lee Smolin said this:

Some take the fine-tuning to be simply a basic fact about our Universe: fortunate perhaps, but not something requiring explanation. But like many scientists and philosophers, I find this implausible. In The Life of the Cosmos (1999), the physicist Lee Smolin has estimated that, taking into account all of the fine-tuning examples considered, the chance of life existing in the Universe is 1 in 10229, from which he concludes:

In my opinion, a probability this tiny is not something we can let go unexplained. Luck will certainly not do here; we need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case.

link

There's a simple explanation and it involves consciousness, information, thermal equilibrium and entropy. It's a simple explanation.

First off, entropy is a measure of uncertainty. Information can give us certainty about a subsystem of the whole system. Shannon made this connection between entropy and information. Before you flip a coin, you have 1 bit of entropy(uncertainty). When you flip the coin and it lands on heads, you have 1 bit of information(certainty of a subsystem).

If you flip a coin a 100 times, you know have a string of information that we call data. Humans can take this data, arrange it in certain ways to reduce the uncertainty of a subsystem thereby lowering it's entropy locally but the overall entropy of the universe increases more than you can lower it locally. This allows us to have cars, houses, TV's, stoves and more.

We're data processing machines that can take a collection of information(data) and uses it to reduce uncertainty and put subsystems in a state of lower entropy.

For instance, you can have a disease that was seen as deadly in the 1900's and today it's easy to prevent. This is because over the years we have processed data about the disease and treatments that work and don't work and we use the data to reduce the uncertainty.

This is why the universe has to be conscious. The system(universe) at thermal equilibrium will still fluctuate into lower entropy states. This fluctuation is entropy(uncertainty) becoming information(certainty about a subsystem.

The consciousness of the universe is us. We're an expression of that consciousness. That consciousness now has a collection of data produced by these fluctuations. It can put this data together in a way that reduces uncertainty and lowers the entropy of a subsystem(our universe).

We can easily test this by looking to see where the universe goes against a natural outcome towards a better outcome for the subsystem. We see this already in nature but we can do a more extensive study of this. Naturally, the universe shouldn't care about doing what's best for the subsystem. So we shouldn't see any instances of the universe going against it's natural outcome towards a more beneficial outcome.

a reply to: neoholographic

I’d say, EVERYTHING in the universe is consciousness. Mind is everwhere. It expresses itself thru different media, us and us being matter, matter including. But also time, vacuum, planets, stars, black holes, galaxies... parallel existencies... everything.

a reply to: deckdel

Entropy is time is entropy. The arrow of time breaks down all order, turns it into chaos, which finds new order... an endless cycle. Intelligence may be produced, but is it required?

a reply to: neoholographic

i would have to agree with you. Ancient cultures have been saying this forever.

I've been listening to a guy named Thomas Campbell. He practices astral projection and has very interesting theories in my opinion. He used to work for NASA but he is saying that the Universe is conscious and being a human is a school for consciousness to learn to lower entropy.

I thought this was an interesting video.

a reply to: neoholographic

For instance, you can have a disease that was seen as deadly in the 1900's and today it's easy to prevent. This is because over the years we have processed data about the disease and treatments that work and don't work and we use the data to reduce the uncertainty.

This is why the universe has to be conscious. The system(universe) at thermal equilibrium will still fluctuate into lower entropy states. This fluctuation is entropy(uncertainty) becoming information(certainty about a subsystem.

The consciousness of the universe is us. We're an expression of that consciousness. That consciousness now has a collection of data produced by these fluctuations. It can put this data together in a way that reduces uncertainty and lowers the entropy of a subsystem(our universe).

Your OP is interesting and covers two subjects I like to ponder on sometimes - entropy and consciousness. Saying that, I can't see where you've joined these ideas up between the above paragraphs. 'This is why the universe has to be conscious' is a statement of certainty that isn't clearly supported by the previous comments.

What I take from your comments is you're leaning towards an anthropic exceptionalism. As far as things stand, we are certainly exceptional, but it isn't clear that we're special enough to be reducing overall entropy in the universe. I guess you have a point and, philosophically, it can be argued we're affecting entropy in our end of space, but is that significant in the greater picture? For instance, we're currently measuring and studying the heat death of galaxies which suggests we can be conscious and measure entropy without affecting it. If any intelligent observers exist in those places, they may be measuring their own extinctions.

Goff's article is right up my street too and thought provoking. Right off the bat, he suggests the universe is fine-tuned for life and it's arguably more realistic to say life is fine-tuned to the universe - a profound and nuanced difference. Earth could have complex life wiped out and the universe would continue without it.

I think the author is leaning towards a variation of Intelligent Design which makes his use of 'Ockham's razor' and 'parsimony' open to question. Not saying he's wrong, just that consciousness as a by-product of complexity in the universe is arguably more parsimonious than saying the universe designed itself.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Thanks for the response but you said:

As far as things stand, we are certainly exceptional, but it isn't clear that we're special enough to be reducing overall entropy in the universe.

I didn't say that. In fact, I explicitly said this was impossible:

There's 2 important things that are impossible. It's impossible to lower the overall entropy of the universe

and this:

If you flip a coin a 100 times, you know have a string of information that we call data. Humans can take this data, arrange it in certain ways to reduce the uncertainty of a subsystem thereby lowering it's entropy locally but the overall entropy of the universe increases more than you can lower it locally. This allows us to have cars, houses, TV's, stoves and more. We're data processing machines that can take a collection of information(data) and uses it to reduce uncertainty and put subsystems in a state of lower entropy.

You could never reduce the overall entropy of the universe but you can reduce the entropy of subsystems and that's what we do. This gives us the world we live in.

This is what universal consciousness does.

We belong to a system that has reached thermal equilibrium. This system is at maximum entropy. This means entropy doesn't increase anymore for this system. Fluctuations will occur that puts part of the system in a low entropy state. Our universe is in a low entropy state that can't occur via a quantum fluctuation. It would have to be a massive fluctuation to a lower entropy state with our initial conditions. It can't happen naturally.

If you have a fundamental consciousness though, that's like our consciousness it can look at these fluctuations as a collection of information which is data. It can then reduce the uncertainty of a subsystem of the system in thermal equilibrium into a low entropy state with the initial conditions of our universe.

So essentially a mind can process and arrange data in a way that gives us a subsystem that's far from equilibrium.

Here's an example.

You can think of a hypothetical dirty thermal equilibrium house where the house will always remain dirty and can never be cleaned. Some parts of the house just spontaneously become clean for a second but quickly go back to being dirty. A conscious mind that lives in the house, can clean one of the rooms but never the entire house. Now, after you clean the room and have it in a spotless low entropy state, overtime it will always seek to be at equilibrium with the rest of the house and move towards a higher state of entropy. So eventually the clean room will be dirty and at equilibrium with the rest of the house.

You can look at the universe in the same way.

The dirty house is the larger system at thermal equilibrium. Universal consciousness can use data from quantum fluctuations to reduce the entropy of a subsystem of this larger system(our universe). We're on a journey though back to equilibrium. The system wants our low entropy universe back into the thermal equilibrium fold so to speak.

To me, this is the only thing that makes sense when you look at the great works of Boltzmann and Shannon.

You have to have a human mind that can use data to reduce uncertainty and put a subsystem into a low entropy state like this chair I'm sitting on or this laptop I'm typing on. These things are the result of a conscious mind, taking a collection of information(data) and putting a subsystem in a low entropy state. Universal consciousness did the same thing with the universe.

a reply to: neoholographic

I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Are you saying that because we consciously bring order to our environments (sub systems), the universe is consciously bringing order to some of its environments? That's largely what Goff was postulating and I don't find the argument very persuasive; interesting yet not convincing.

That isn't to say anyone can disprove a universe having consciousness. It seems to be along the lines of 'gods in the gaps' in trying to come to terms with the universe we are observing. This is particularly so when Goff refers to holism to describe the problems of delineating consciousness. The rationale seems to be, 'We have consciousness, lesser/lower animals have consciousness so it stands to reason that the universe has consciousness.' This is why I associated Goff with Intelligent Design and left out Dr Craig as he's a committed Creationist.

For what it's worth, I have no problem if you or anyone else favours ID or basic Creationism. Each to their own on that one. Also, as an agnostic, it's something I wonder about too even though I'm mostly rooted in what you might call 'the materialist view.'

a reply to: booyakasha


That guy is cuckoo

a reply to: Kandinsky

You said:

I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Are you saying that because we consciously bring order to our environments (sub systems), the universe is consciously bringing order to some of its environments?

Exactly,

There has to be an immaterial consciousness who can take information(data) from fluctuations and put this data together in a way that reduces uncertainty and lowers the entropy of a subsystem.

We do it with cars, boats, books, TV's, Houses and more, universal consciousness does it with the universe. We are this singular consciousness having many "me" experiences.

Here's an article about Scientist looking for signs of consciousness in the universe as I mentioned earlier.

Is the Universe Conscious?

Some of the world's most renowned scientists are questioning whether the cosmos has an inner life similar to our own.

Even in that context, Gregory Matloff’s ideas are shocking. The veteran physicist at New York City College of Technology recently published a paper arguing that humans may be like the rest of the universe in substance and in spirit. A “proto-consciousness field” could extend through all of space, he argues. Stars may be thinking entities that deliberately control their paths. Put more bluntly, the entire cosmos may be self-aware.

One of the hallmarks of life is its ability to adjust its behavior in response to stimulus. Matloff began searching for astronomical objects that unexpectedly exhibit this behavior. Recently, he zeroed in on a little-studied anomaly in stellar motion known as Paranego’s Discontinuity. On average, cooler stars orbit our galaxy more quickly than do hotter ones. Most astronomers attribute the effect to interactions between stars and gas clouds throughout the galaxy. Matloff considered a different explanation. He noted that the anomaly appears in stars that are cool enough to have molecules in their atmospheres, which greatly increases their chemical complexity.

Matloff noted further that some stars appear to emit jets that point in only one direction, an unbalanced process that could cause a star to alter its motion. He wondered: Could this actually be a willful process? Is there any way to tell?

If Paranego’s Discontinuity is caused by specific conditions within the galaxy, it should vary from location to location. But if it is something intrinsic to the stars — as consciousness would be — it should be the same everywhere. Data from existing stellar catalogs seems to support the latter view, Matloff claims. Detailed results from the Gaia star-mapping space telescope, due in 2018, will provide a more stringent test.

link

As I said earlier, we need to be looking for signs of consciousness in the universe. Does universal conscious update the subsystem that it has put in a low entropy state like we do with inventions?

a reply to: neoholographic

Its possible to reduce entropy. All about the nature of the perceiver...