Hypothesis for an Intelligent and Conscious Universe

reply to post by jiggerj

If a god shows up then he'll be proof of god.

Out of curiosity: how would you recognize a god? What are your parameters for identifying a godly being? If this is too far off topic for your taste, please respond via U2U.

Consciousness - meaning intelligent awareness of self - is extremely sophisticated, and if you want to have a primordial consciousness "field" as the central tenet of your theory, you'll need to fully detail exactly how that consciousness field originated. This is the very least of what it would take to transform your musings into an actual hypothesis (which it must be before it can then be subjected to falsification as it makes its way toward becoming a theory). If you simply want to state that the universe is intelligent and consciously aware of itself, and don't wish to put in the extreme devotion and effort to somehow proving a means by which the universe becomes intelligent and consciously aware of itself as an apical holon entity, then what you'll need to be satisfied with is that you've offered a philosophical notion and nothing more.

The process and requirements for a serious hypothesis - if what is being suggested is an actual definition of what is real and tangible - are very standardized, and even the most dazzling notions generally fail to achieve hypothesis status.

But good luck with this. What the hell. Supersymmetry and String Theory are all but collapsed as viable hypotheses, and there are a lot of eager young physicists clamoring for a way to save their careers as a result.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jiggerj

 

If a god shows up then he'll be proof of god.

Out of curiosity: how would you recognize a god? What are your parameters for identifying a godly being? If this is too far off topic for your taste, please respond via U2U.

edit on 14-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

If we're talking about a god: Taking the form of an earthly creature (human, or raccoon, or platypus...) he would appear out of thin air before a multitude, and hover for a bit before settling into a chair. He would talk directly into our minds, and most importantly, he would heal someone with an amputated arm.

On a slightly related note I made this video and this tune in an attempt to try to get people to think of the gaia hypothesis first proposed by James Lovelock to apply universally, not just planetarily.



The gaia hypothesis has pretty much become accepted as a scientific theory now, but versions of it that apply to the universe at large, which is surely the next logical step, have not been very forthcoming.

reply to post by jiggerj


So, to you, a god is denoted by physical feats? What of their emotional or intellectual processes? Would you expect anything particularly noteworthy in those areas?

The reason I ask is because we humans seem to expect a gaudy and extravagant being when we think of gods. But perhaps we're looking in the wrong direction as a result of what we wish we could be. We have a notorious difficulty appreciating that which is flawed or imperfect, so I can't say that we're in any sort of position to determine what a god should or should not be. Now don't get me wrong, I appreciate your input regarding what you feel would qualify as a godly being; however, I cannot help but question our comprehensive abilities to effectively predict what is truly godly due to difficulties such as the one I have described above.

Perhaps we should be thinking in terms of simplicity, rather than grandeur. One is not made great by having power, but by what they can understand and do without it. One who has the power to reshape a galaxy is rendered helpless should they inexplicably find themselves powerless. What sort of god are they then?

Do you see what I'm saying?

God is everything and everything is love.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

So, to you, a god is denoted by physical feats? What of their emotional or intellectual processes? Would you expect anything particularly noteworthy in those areas?

A god to me is something quite different than what the three major religions ascribe to. I was just saying that in order for the christian god to actually prove himself he would have to take physical form.

For me, an all-knowing, all-powerful, PERFECT god cannot have emotions. An emotional god would have destroyed us when we (mankind) murdered his son (if you believe in all of that Jesus crap).

reply to post by Astyanax

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

Cool reply; thanks. Did you notice I gave you three different models there?

Not at first, you seemed to be basing your post on the idea that the universe is a brain that is still attempting to have a thought. Which again, is not what Im getting at, but I definitely appreciate your feedback and thoughts.

You don't have to believe that mind arises out of matter, but if mind is going to have any kind of interaction with matter (meaning that mind can put physical processes into motion – exercise free will, make things happen) then to the degree that it relies on physical processes to achieve its ends it must wait on physical processes to work themselves out, and that takes time.

What sorts of physical processes are you referring to, out of curiosity? I'm still trying to work around the mind issue. It's not physical or tangible but can freely manipulate the physical and tangible. While I think the mind and consciousness share a deep connection in many ways, it still is possible to "lose or alter ones mind" if there is, say, damage done to the brain. So in this respect I guess there would have to be a connection between (the functionality of) mind and matter in some sense. However I don't find this is necessarily the case with consciousness.

You seem to have thought of this, since you suggest that the self-conscious universe may be able to move freely in all directions in time (taking time as a dimension). In that case, of course, it could go back in time and create itself! A nice closed Vedic loop, and answers everybody's favourite puzzlers about What Happened Before The Big Bang, etc. Well, it's certainly a possibility (I'm feeling generous tonight) but if the universe were constantly intervening in its own temporal processes you'd be seeing miracles everywhere.

I honestly don't recall suggesting this idea and I can't say that I think the universe is a vedic loop. Worth a consideration though? But couldn't intelligent life be considered a miracle? That is, if you're of the belief that life has no business being able to survive in the radiation filled vacuum that is space let alone to have arisen in the first place. The probabilities are mind boggling, no?

Besides, if you invoke one unfalsifiable possibility to justify another, we end up piling speculation on speculation. Is the universe conscious? If it is conscious, is it then intelligent? If it is intelligent, is it bound by time? And as the tower of questions grows higher it grows wobblier, because we really don't have answers to steady the first tier, never mind the second or the third. It's okay to think about, but you can't really discuss it, because there's nothing concrete to discuss.

Really it's just one. We are proof of an intelligent and conscious universe. Us. Intelligence and consciousness are essentially one in the same here. But I understand what you're getting at with the wobbly jenga tower. Because as we build it up, we inevitably have to pull pieces away.

I can absolutely disagree with your feeling that we should disregard that which is not concrete. Otherwise how else do we progress as a species? Dark matter and dark energy are far from concrete, but is the scientific community kicking it to the curb and just saying 'to hell with it, we can't explain that funny stuff so lets stop talking about it"? It's not that far of a stretch to consider the grounds of what I'm offering. That is if you're able to keep god out of it of course; which I understand can be a challenge for some materialist/religious folks out there alike.

I have a pretty materialistic view of intelligence (which, I think we can agree, is not the same as consciousness), so for me we're pretty much all thermostats on that level, never mind if we also possess disembodied intellects or even (that generous feeling again) disembodied souls.

Well, I would say that Intelligence is the same as consciousness, at least in the context that is offered in my (humble) hypothesis. Intelligence as you noted earlier has many meanings. One of which defines it as the state of being self-aware. You seem to have a pretty materialistic view in general (I could be wrong). But I appreciate your "generosity" here. So you don't like the word soul then. How about spirit, psyche, or self? Any of those would do the trick too... either way I'm not so sure we should disregard whatever the essence is that makes you, you.

Would you consider an hypothesis for a rather stupid but conscious universe?

Not in this thread.

reply to post by ZeuZZ


That hypothesis, in order to apply universally, would require lifeforms outside of Planet Earth, as well as within. That's 99.999999999999999999999999% (to an exponential degree) of the puzzle still missing, to date.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

We can't view these things either, except through instruments that mediate and magnify their traces. Why should intelligent atoms (or rather, intelligent atomic-scale beings, if they could exist) or beings the size of stars not build analogous instruments?.

Your little atomic beings could certainly build analogous instruments. And if they were inside our bodies looking out, they wouldn't see the universe we see. They'd see the one inside our bodies and would probably be wondering what the hell it all is! Or what about an atomic scale being within Jupiter?

Also, how much smaller could atomic scale beings see from their vantage point? Haven't we seen as far down as we could? And there's nothing there!

So I would say that it doesn't work like it does for us.

Actually, there's a bit more to it than that: Copernican Principle | Principle of Mediocrity

The principle of mediocrity is a bit of an oxymoron if you ask me. I love the assumptions its makes

After six hundred years of having those damn' principles dinned into us by nature, I'm being dismissive?

Well yes you were, when you referred to my premise as being superstitious

People have attributed awareness to everything from the Sun to their teddy bears.

Well if consciousness can ever be explained by quantum mechanics then perhaps it may very well cease to be considered false to attribute awareness to those things.

Exactly. A bit chauvinistic, no? Who am I to place myself above codfish in the grand scheme of things?

Perhaps it was meant that a codfish, while conscious, is not self-aware that he is (conscious). Where as you are. So in that context I'd say yes, go ahead a place yourself above a cod fish, without all the guilt. There are perks to being a human.

Disproving that the universe is conscious – as he or she correctly claimed not to have been able to do – essentially means proving that the universe is not conscious. And as everybody knows, you can't prove a negative. So I suggested trying to disprove that it was unconscious. Lack of success would suggest that it was conscious.

It seems my illiteracy flares up from time to time.

I reread what you and he wrote and retract my statement.

I just found a rock. I can now conclude that the entirety of the universe must be composed of minerals. That is the argument I have observed thus far. If you really want to be disproven, I would suggest you visit your local college and confer with a biology or astronomy professor.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

Eh...no. Not exactly. Take this picture here:

It's a 64 tetrahedron. Now if you look at each individual bar that continues in a straight line, and imagine it representing a plane of existence, or a "layer" of reality, and then imagine all of those sheets fitting together as represented by the geometrical shape in the picture, and imagine that continuing on infinitely...that's something like the multiverse I'm thinking of.

Got it.

But if you're going to introduce a "hypothesis", you must be open to contradicting evidence. That's how science works.

Great. And I trust that you're well aware this applies to your 64 tetrahedron multi-verse hypothesis as well then.

How else would you define the combustion and disintegration of the primordial chaos? I'm speaking from the simplistic perspective of creation, preservation, and destruction. If the universe becomes unstable and loses its ability to maintain cohesive interactivity, with the result that it collapses in upon itself or simply falls apart, I would label that as a "failure".

Just because you would label that a failure doesn't make it so. The inevitable collapse of our universe may be just another step in the process of its evolution. We have no clue what would happen next. Energy can't be destroyed. Unless you know something we don't.

You don't have the qualifications to accurately read into it. You have the wits to open a calculus book and erroneously believe you have reached the correct conclusions from extrapolated tidbits. That is very telling to me.

Says the man behind the curtain.

Your hypothesis was weak to begin with. Using humans as proof of an intelligent universe is the same as using flour for proof that my house is a bakery shop. My house has the potential to produce baked goods. That does not make my household a designated bakery. It simply suggests a number of possibilities, none of which are any more likely than the next without further evidence.

No it's not the same. You (intelligence) have the potential to produce those baked goods by putting the right ingredients together and mixing them up in the just the right way. The house has nothing to do with it. It's not the intelligent producer in this analogy. You are

Not necessarily. As I said, an infinite number of possible variations will inevitably produce optimistic results. But in the end, they may all turn out to be failures. Some just last longer than others. if I throw a bunch of Scrabble letters in the air and they fall together to form a word, where was the intelligent influence?

The processes that lead to me typing this message to you were governed by some very specific laws. Laws that were set forth from the first moment of time. Laws that allowed for this to happen. Laws that are all part of the process and part of the creation that is the universe. And then there's the hard problem of consciousness.

That's unfortunate. I was under the impression you were looking for an answer

As if you'd be the person to provide them?

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

This was all I was getting at. The rest of your statement is off topic. The OP said humans were proof of a god. No, humans are proof of humans. If a god shows up then he'll be proof of god.

FALSE.

Read the OP again and please quote the part where I say that humans are proof of god.

reply to post by jiggerj


If the universe produces a consciousness that is able to look back and see itself, then the universe is technically self aware. This is a logical statement. The universe and its laws are governed by logic.

This is regardless of how small we are or how big it is. The universe does not care about size.

So yes we do play a role, as do any other intelligent/conscious beings that may exist out there.

You take the glass half empty approach which, judging by the negativity that permeates some of your posts for no good reason, is no surprise. So I can see why you would consider humans as insignificant.

But I still welcome your point of view. It only serves to help make mine better.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Your first sentence in that post would require the assumption that we humans represent the universe as a whole. I'm afraid that is an erroneous assumption. Unless of course you possess substantial evidence to suggest otherwise?

I mean, that's like me saying some two-headed frog represents this planet as a whole.

Originally posted by NorEaster
Consciousness - meaning intelligent awareness of self - is extremely sophisticated, and if you want to have a primordial consciousness "field" as the central tenet of your theory, you'll need to fully detail exactly how that consciousness field originated.

Not even current science can explain the origin of the phenomena.

If you simply want to state that the universe is intelligent and consciously aware of itself, and don't wish to put in the extreme devotion and effort to somehow proving a means by which the universe becomes intelligent and consciously aware of itself as an apical holon entity, then what you'll need to be satisfied with is that you've offered a philosophical notion and nothing more.

Ok good so at least I put this in the right forum then.

All I've gotten is people saying that my hypothesis is garbage or that I have a long way to go in formalizing it. But no one has adequately disproved its premise. So take a shot at it. And please spare me the baking analogies if at all possible.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

This was all I was getting at. The rest of your statement is off topic. The OP said humans were proof of a god. No, humans are proof of humans. If a god shows up then he'll be proof of god.

FALSE.

Read the OP again and please quote the part where I say that humans are proof of god.

That the universe is in fact intelligent That the universe is in fact conscious. Our very existence is proof of the first two points.

You call the universe intelligent and conscious. To many this inference means a god. If you want to knit-pick on this, fine. I will edit my words without changing the context.

No, our existence does not prove that the universe is intelligent and conscious. Our existence only proves our existence. Only the universe can prove its intelligence and consciousness by writing "Hi, I am the universe," across our sky.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Everything in the universe IS the universe.

Sure. Even the pulp of an orange is part of the orange. What I take issue with is your claim that we are proof that the universe is intelligent and conscious. Just because we can think in no way proves that the universe can think. You take the human animal's best attribute (intelligence) and claim it as proof that the universe is intelligent.

The best attribute of a fish is that it can swim. Is this proof that the universe can swim? The best attribute of a skunk is that it can spray an awful stink. Is this proof that the universe can spray an awful stink?

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by jiggerj

 

You take the glass half empty approach which, judging by the negativity that permeates some of your posts for no good reason, is no surprise. So I can see why you would consider humans as insignificant.

But I still welcome your point of view. It only serves to help make mine better.

LOL Because you look at this question as a matter of a glass being half empty or half full proves your reasoning and logic is flawed. Either your premise is correct or it isn't; there's no optimism or pessimism about it.

If the universe produces a consciousness that is able to look back and see itself, then the universe is technically self aware. This is a logical statement.

Logical? You take ONE attribute from ONE species of animal and offer that as proof of something as grand as a universal consciousness. Why can't you see the human arrogance in this? The universe produces the human animal with an opposable thumb. Is this proof that the universe has an opposable thumb? The universe produces giraffes with a really long neck. Is this proof that the universe has a really long neck?

I'm not even saying that the universe ISN'T conscious and intelligent. I'm saying that what you offer as evidence for it is totally wrong, humanly self-centered and arrogant.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


Humans represent less than 0.00000000000000000001% of the universe. We are comparatively insignificant. But we can still be significant among each other. Is this not enough?