CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
The How and The Why of Emergence and Intention by George Gantz
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author George Gantz wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 17:29 GMT
Essay AbstractOver the past few decades, considerable progress has been made in explaining how complex, intelligent behaviors emerge in dynamic systems. The overall architecture can now be discerned, although much work remains to be done on the particulars. At the same time, the question of why the universe works this way remains as elusive as ever. There is a direction to the process, and we do not understand the nature of that intentionality. We are left with contradictory hypotheses for why the universe is the way it is. Do you believe that what exists is fundamentally an expression of randomness within mathematical forms? Or do you believe in a cosmic intentionality that provides generative guidance for the emergence and evolution of our uniquely specified universe? I believe this question is, and always will be, from an empirical standpoint, undecidable. Yet our choice of answer is fundamental to how we think about the world and how we live in it. We had best choose wisely. I make an argument for cosmic intentionality.
Author BioGeorge Gantz is a writer, philosopher and retired business executive with a life-long passion for mathematics, science, philosophy and theology. He has a Bachelor of Science degree with Honors Humanities from Stanford University, directs the Forum on Integrating Science and Spirituality at www.swedenborgcenterconcord.org and blogs on related topics. His essay The Tip of The Spear earned 4th place in the 2014 FQXi essay contest.
Download Essay PDF File
Ines Samengo wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 18:39 GMT
Dear George, I just read your sunny essay. I search for knowledge when I read this forum, yet you made me joyful. Thanks for that! I must ask the question, however, even if it may sound bitter. If I get you well, you believe that from rational grounds, the answer to your main question is undecidable. Yet, you opt for conscious intentionality, as an act of free will (assuming there is such thing, which you seem to assume). Would it be a good summary to say that your choice is based on the fact that it makes you happier? That you do not want to represent the universe as purpose-less, in your mind, because that would mean choices are only illusory free, and therefore opt for the intentional alternative? Please let me know if I got you right. I myself argue that there are no goals per se, but that we choose to see them. Not exactly because their existence makes us happier, but rather, because their detection allows us to make predictions, and thereby, to be more fit to pass on our genes.
By the way... congrats for the grandson! You did succeed in passing on your genes - in combination with others. Whether your positive view of the world is causally related to such a success is another question (or is it the same question?).
inés.
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 00:48 GMT
Thank you inés. I'm glad my essay made you happy. Yes, I tend to be optimistic, but I believe the evidence for cosmic intentionality is very good, in fact compelling. But one has to be open to the idea. I quite agree that one can hold a rational and consistent belief in randomness, in which case one will also tend to reject or de-emphasize the evidence which I find so compelling.
Your comment about our choosing to see goals, which makes us more fit to pass on our genes, is interesting. I agree with you. I also see, in that statement, one small piece of the intentionality of evolution. Our universe intends us to be successful in anticipating the future and rewards us by passing on our genes. Over time, this leads to increasing knowledge, wisdom and mastery for the whole of humanity.
By the way, there is considerable evidence in recent psychological literature that those with a positive outlook tend to live more positive lives. This idea could lead us into a long discussion of Pascal's wager --- and whether evidence is mounting in favor of the choice he was arguing for.....
Ines Samengo replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 10:03 GMT
I fully agree with everything you say. Best! inés.
report post as inappropriate
Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 23:31 GMT
Dear George,
I enjoyed reading your poetic essay two years ago; it’s a pleasure to read your new text, both rational and spiritual. Pointing to the metaphysical choice between the fundamental chaos and intentionality, you state that the case is undecidable from the empirical standpoint and suggest strong argument for the intentionality on the ethical ground. Lev and I more than agree with your ethical reasoning, but we do not completely agree about impossibility to decide on the scientific ground. If you remember our two-year old essay, “Genesis of a Pythagorean Universe”, we showed there that the laws of nature are so specific, that only upper Mind can be their source. Briefly, we repeat this argumentation in our text suggested for this contest. However, we still agree that ethical argumentation is needed, since on the ground of the laws of nature one cannot tell why the Demiurge could not be sort of Descartes’ evil demon. Your essay presents the ethical argument in a new and interesting way, and we are giving you a high score.
Good luck!
Alexey.
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 02:04 GMT
Alexey / Lev -
Nice to hear from you again. Ah, yes, the Demiurge strikes again. I enjoyed your essay last time and look forward to reading the new one.
I'll be most interested in seeing how you can sail the empirical arguments through the treaturous shoals between the rocks of Godel and QP. and to hear how the Upper Mind conceives of intentionality.
Cheers - George
James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 06:25 GMT
George,
"I believe this question is, and always will be, from an empirical standpoint, undecidable. Yet our choice of answer is fundamental to how we think about the world and how we live in it. We had best choose wisely. I make an argument for cosmic intentionality."
Your words perhaps indicate the inscrutability of this topic. My idea of a cosmic intentionality involves mindless laws furnishing restraint and direction for our daily flow of actions. Survival involves instinctive mechanisms for living and actually non-living things for physicists like Jeremy England. Goals arise in a decision context, according to Aristotle and we have a remarkably similar cycle of life, death and rebirth from molecular life to galaxies and the universe/s and metaphorical similarities between the human womb and the universe's womb.
I'm not really sure what your cosmic intentionality means, other than my rambling.
I would like to see your thoughts on my essay.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 12:32 GMT
James -
As you say - "... our daily flow of action"
For every action there is intention. Without intention there is mere wandering, and the universe would go nowhere, or perhaps, according to the multiverse, everywhere.
Thanks for reading my essay. I look forward to reading yours!
-George
Harry Hamlin Ricker III wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 15:43 GMT
George, Nicely written, and thought out.
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 20:54 GMT
Thank you Harry. I look forward to reading yours when I have a chance!
Gavin William Rowland wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 23:48 GMT
Dear George. I very much enjoyed reading your essay. Engaging, inspiring and a pleasure to read. I think you are pointing correctly at the gaping hole in science - one that includes the universe's global trajectory towards increasing complexity and at the same time our heartfelt desire for a better existence.
I think it is brave, too, to step out and say this in such an open way, as too often anything optimistic is seen as subjective bias, where pessimistic outlooks are seen as objective. (A correlation between pessimism and being a critic perhaps?)
I am interested in your differentiation between intentionality and agency. Can you enlarge on this at all?
Finally, I think you will find my essay "From Nothingness to Value Ethics" interesting. I am trying to turn the "gaping hole" issue I refer to into something more defined.
best regards, Gavin
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 01:43 GMT
Thank you Gavin. I look forward to reading your essay.
As I said in the essay, intention is a behavior (motion and direction) and agency is an internal conscious capacity, something we only observe in the case of our self. I think the case for intentionality in the universe is clear - that behavior is present and observed at all levels of creation and evolution. Addressing the question of whether there is agency behind it requires a leap of faith, as it were. That's a different kind of conversation for a different day.
Regards - George
William L Stubbs wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 21:51 GMT
George Gantz,
Your essay is interesting and has a sort of metaphysical feel to me, which, based on some of the other essays submitted, does not appear to be out of bounds for this competition. I noticed you tend to personify non-living systems, which, in my opinion, can make them appear to act with intent when, in actuality, they are at the mercy of their environments. This is something I touched on in my essay. For example, you say:
“… flowing water seeks out a stable structure …”
Perhaps it does “seek out,” but maybe it just settles into a stable structure that it had no choice in assuming. In another example, you say of emerging galaxies:
“The system searches through available configurations …”
with a goal of minimizing local entropy. Again, I wonder if the galaxy had no choice but to adhere to the configuration dictated by the laws of physics that applied to the various situations occurring within it.
I may be digressing into semantics here, but I do not believe that when the white billiard ball you speak of in your essay strikes the red one, it intended to strike it. Based on the physics of the situation, it had no choice but to strike it. If, given the physical constraints that should lead to a collision, the white ball somehow changed its course to avoid the red ball; that would signal intent on the part of the white ball, to me.
All this said, I believe I know what you were trying to say, and I think you did a good job of presenting your case. What I am struggling with is whether or not you believe mindless mathematical laws can give rise to aim and intentions; and if so, how? You likely covered this in the essay, but somehow, I missed it. If you could just briefly respond to this question, I would greatly appreciate it.
Regards,
Bill Stubbs.
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 13:20 GMT
Thanks, Bill. Good observations. Semantics are important in dealing with difficult questions. I tried to distinguish my use of the word “intention” from the more common meaning that conflates intention with conscious choice (agency). The billiard ball is not conscious. But it’s movement plays a role in moving the universe forward and, in my definition, demonstrates intention. I would also argue that as we drill down from the apparent determinism of classical physics into the quantum realm, or up into the dynamics of complex systems, it becomes clear that choices are being made manifest in the intention demonstrated at the system level. I do not claim these are necessarily conscious - that’s a different discussion.
To be clear, I do not think mathematical laws give rise to aims and intentions. Mathematical laws do not act alone - they have to be activated by intentions. Mathematics provides permissible pathways for intentions to flows.
As to being metaphysical, I believe the FQXi questions (at least the three I have participated in) are fundamentally metaphysical in character, and answering them requires inquiry that extends beyond the empirical. This was a key thesis in my 2015 essay The Hole at the Center of Creation.
Regards - George
Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 16:58 GMT
Dear George Gantz,
Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.
I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 17:38 GMT
Thank you Joe for reading my essay - I look forward to reading yours.
I'm always wary of arguments that begin with that quote of Einstein's, an elegant variation of Occam's razor. Things can be made very simple by choosing not to see the complexity, by avoiding the nuance, or by relying on rhetoric. This was a key finding in my 2015 essay, The Hole at the Center of Creation. That said, while I am a big fan of infinity and zero, I really am not sure the one can stand alone........
Cheers - George
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 14:00 GMT
Nice essay Gantz,
I am quoting few words from your essay……
Imagine 100 monkeys typing (presumably randomly) on 100 typewriters for a limitless period of time. Eventually, hidden somewhere in the seemingly endless streams of nonsense, they would produce a perfect replica of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. How can you tell the difference between nonsense and a work of art created...
view entire post
Nice essay Gantz,
I am quoting few words from your essay……
Imagine 100 monkeys typing (presumably randomly) on 100 typewriters for a limitless period of time. Eventually, hidden somewhere in the seemingly endless streams of nonsense, they would produce a perfect replica of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. How can you tell the difference between nonsense and a work of art created intentionally? .................... Whatever the monkeys type, from the random typing to get a replica of Shakespeare’s Hamlet I s virtually impossible, probability may be 1 part in 10
1000000000000 According to our modern cosmology, the universe unfolded in a cascade of transitions and broken symmetries from the primordial state of the Big Bang. ……………….. For your information, in Dynamic Universe Model there is no Bigbang.
From your abstract I am quoting the first and the last sentences …. “Over the past few decades, considerable progress has been made in explaining how complex, intelligent behaviors emerge in dynamic systems” … &… “I make an argument for cosmic intentionality.” This is exactly what I am doing in my essay. Universe is a Dynamical System and I am showing the intentionality. Here I am also proposing a fundamental property of Universe. It is reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe. As you are interested in fundamental questions , I request you to please have a look on my essay with a different type of fundamental ideology…
For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.
Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.
With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.
Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain
Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/
Be
st wishes to your essay.
For your blessings please…………….
=snp. gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 14:36 GMT
SNP Gupta -
Thank you for reading my essay and for your remarks. I look forward to reading yours!
As for the 100 monkeys, please note that they type for a limitless period of time. Also, your probability estimate of 1 in 10^10^11 is still quite small compared to the number of quantum multiverses at 10^10^10^7.
Many blessings and good luck with your essay - George
Steven Andresen wrote on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 14:21 GMT
Hi George
You messaged me earlier, me being the author for (Dirty Wet Chemical Universal Awakening) however I have been away camping and hadn't had opportunity to properly respond. I read your essay the other day while on camp, and so briefly revised it again just now. I much enjoyed your ideas, questionings and contemplation's and will be rating your essay generously, in the minutes...
view entire post
Hi George
You messaged me earlier, me being the author for (Dirty Wet Chemical Universal Awakening) however I have been away camping and hadn't had opportunity to properly respond. I read your essay the other day while on camp, and so briefly revised it again just now. I much enjoyed your ideas, questionings and contemplation's and will be rating your essay generously, in the minutes before voting closes to maximize its benefit for you.
I appreciate opinions that confront the complexity problem, and clearly you are very thoughtful on the subject. You even mention within your intro the prospects for an evolving purposeful universe, which you might recall why I would find that notion of interest (Darwinian Physics). You go on to express the opinion that this is undecidable, and will likely remain that way. Which leads you and I to a point on contention which no doubt would make the basis of a very interesting discussion.
Within your conclusion you ask the question, "do you believe the universe in an expression of randomness within mathematical forms, or do you believe there is a cosmic intentionality that provides generative guidance for the emergence of our universe in its unique specific configuration? My answer is, "intentionality implies intellectual choosing, and my theme for a Darwinian universal emergence cannot be said to be compatible with that notion. Evolutionary progression and direction is not chosen intelectually. But neither are the results of natural selection random chance, hence the selection component. So although I cannot answer yes to either of your questions, I have put forward a hypothesis that prospectively can provide decidability on the subject of why and how of universal nature, order and complexity.
I respect your reservations for the multiverse theory. It promises to solve a problem while adding nothing new and tangible to the conversation. Drawing at straws.
And a fun and joyful piece of writing. Thank you for sharing it with us.
I will form a reply to your message on my page tomorrow, so hopefully if you dont have to many other distractions going on right now, you will join me there?
Steven Andresen
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz wrote on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 14:36 GMT
Hi Steven -
Thank you. I will take a look at your page and respond.
I admit that I intentionally (consciously!) ducked the question of "intellectual choosing" because of the quagmire that besets arguments concerning cosmic consciousness. The speculation that a direction / intention is at work in the evolution of the universe stands on its own and can be observed. The speculation that such intention is a conscious choice of some universal agent is rather more difficult to support and requires a significant leap of faith. This leap is compelling for some and anathema for others.
Cheers - George
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 15:02 GMT
Dear George,
Very interesting and deep analytical essay. You give constructive concepts and ideas that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists and
lyrics filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).
I believe that the modern "crisis of understanding" » (K.V.Kopeykin "Souls "of atoms and "atoms"of the soul: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and the "three great problems of physics"), «trouble with physics (Lee Smolin," The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next") I believe that the modern "crisis of understanding" is a deep crisis of ontology and dialectics. Your essay gives
hope that we will still be able to unravel the "thought of the Creator before the Creation Act" and build a model of the "self-aware Universe"
(Vasily Nalimov) . My high score. I invite you to read and evaluate my
ideas Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 17:17 GMT
Thank you, Vladimir - I look forward to reading your essay. What an immense breadth of ideas we are all struggling with, eh?
-George
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 18:58 GMT
The winner of the Fields Award, Vladimir Voevodsky said well about the outcome of the "struggle":«… There is a crisis of world science. Real progress will consist in very serious fight of science with religion which will end with their integration. And do not punch my face.»
Cheers - Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 22:56 GMT
Well said, although I would point out that It is only a fight to those who are entrenched in their respective dogmas. Humility and curiosity are the virtues to which we should aspire, and which may yet lead us to the integration that both Voevodsky and I foresee.
Regards - George
Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 10:14 GMT
Yes, George, I totally agree with You. It is very important that Voevodsky deals profoundly with the foundations of mathematics.
You also do very great job of integrating science and religion on the portal
The Swedenborg Center of Concord Wonderful words and goals:
«Albert Einstein once wrote “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.” This statement is at odds with the more common notions that science and religion are in opposition or that science and religion are completely independent and deal with totally distinct questions. However, it succinctly captures the basic ideas to be found in this Forum: That science is increasingly dealing with ineluctable limits that reach metaphysical and theological questions; That religion needs open inquiry and reasoning to remain viable as the source of transcendent insight rather than mere dogma; That human life has both physical and spiritual dimensions that we must cherish and explore as we seek to be truly whole.»
Here I think it is also important to recall Hegel's words: "An educated people without a metaphysics is like a richly decorated temple without a holy of holies."
I once again read the biography of Emanuel Swedenborg. He was a great man, scientist, philosopher!
I wish you success!
Sincerely,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Richard J Benish wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 17:50 GMT
Dear George,
The poetic flavor with which you've tied together and built up an image of a living, intentional Universe I found curiously comforting.
It's the kind of comfort longed for by Martin Fairweather, protagonist in John Updike's short story,
The Accelerating Expansion of the Universe. Unfortunately, Fairweather accepts the 1998 supernova observations as sealing the fate of all life to a cosmic
Big Freeze. He therefore finds no such comfort, but rather, sinks into an "estranging fever of depression."
Since you too appear to accept the basic assumptions of Big Bang cosmology, your warm and fuzzy poetry--much as I really do like it--runs into a seemingly fatal contradiction. The Universe evidently intends to permanently put out our candle's brief hour upon the cosmic stage. According to prevailing ideas, we're quite inevitably doomed. Not much love in that.
Nevertheless, I think the gist of your thesis may yet ring true, because I think the prevailing ideas are based on an utterly incorrect conception of gravity.
It is commonly believed that Einstein's theory has been well-tested on scales from mm to the Solar System. Over this whole range, however, resides a vast untested regime: The most ponderable half of the gravitational Universe,
inside matter. Gravity may seem to be well-tested
over the surfaces of massive bodies, but empirical evidence from
below the surfaces of massive bodies is woefully inadequate.
My essay, Rethinking the Universe, draws attention to this empirical gap, as the idea of filling it arises by instinct from the perspective of an imaginary alien civilization who come to discover gravity for the first time. If their prediction for the result of the experiment (which is doable in an Earth-based laboratory or an orbiting satellite) is confirmed, the cosmic implications include an eternal, perhaps even living and loving Universe.
I hope you enjoy it.
Richard Benish
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 18:13 GMT
Thank you Richard - I will look forward to taking your essay for a ride when I have time!
I appreciate your comment. I would, however, suggest that the "fatal contradiction" you refer to is neither fatal nor disheartening. If the universe intended to snuff the candle, then why provide for dissipative adaption and the evolution of sentient beings?
There are contradictions, however! These are essential and unavoidable, a necessary feature of recursive functions and consciousness alike. This was the topic is my 2015 essay:
your link text]The Hole at the Center of Creation But nothing to feel discouraged about - just curious and joyful!
Cheers - George
Richard J Benish replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 22:04 GMT
Dear George,
Life and consciousness clearly exist at the present moment. Playing Devil's Advocate, I would then argue that this is a marvelous stroke of luck. Given what is assumed to be known about our primordial beginnings (approximately infinite temperature and density) that this deathly state should, for the cosmic blink of an eye, give rise to all the wonders of conscious life is arguably a quite temporary fluke.
(Continuing as Devil): We may like to invent comforting stories to explain our existence and to animate that which is more reasonably regarded as lifeless stuff, but validating such stories with scientific evidence remains a rather wishful dream. This becomes all the more obvious when contemplating the eventual fate of the cosmos, as it asymptotically approaches zero temperature and zero density--forevermore.
(Exit Devil Mode): I disagree with this dismal prognosis because I think the "something [that] gets [and keeps] the ball rolling" is gravity; that, properly understood, gravity is what maintains (regulates?) the Universe at a
constant temperature and density. I have a hunch that you will warm up to the "Rotonian perspective"--as presented in my essay, which explains this as a not only viable but
testable alternative.
According to this view--if one is allowed to wax a bit lyrical--the Cosmic Background Radiation temperature may be thought of as the
body temperature of a living cosmic organism that never dies. The life-giving mechanisms that you so eloquently described in your essay have always existed and always will.
Poetry rules! When backed by empirical evidence, words are not even needed.
Cheers,
Richard Benish
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 22:51 GMT
Thank you Richard -
Gravity is an EXAMPLE of intentionality, not the cause. Consciousness is not a stroke of luck - it is the final cause (teleologically speaking) to which the universe has been heading since the beginning...
Regards! - George
Richard J Benish wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 07:55 GMT
Dear George,
I would not presume to know that there
was a beginning prior to conducting a test of the gravitational interior solutions. Categorical statements about universal consciousness and gravity's role in it surely may need to be revised if it should turn out that prevailing conceptions of gravity and cosmology are deeply wrong.
When a test object is dropped into a hole through the center of a larger massive body, does it oscillate in the hole (standard prediction) or not ("Rotonian" prediction)? Do accelerometers tell the truth about their state of motion, or not?
It is not scientific to
pretend to know the answers to these questions before actually doing the experiment. Sadly, this is the standard response to the proposal to conduct the experiment, even as the the idea has been on the books at least since Galileo 385 years ago. What we think we know about gravity derives almost entirely from observations
over the surfaces of gravitating bodies. We are way overdue to fill the gap inside matter by at last bringing Galileo's proposal to fruition.
Among the many consequences---if the Rotonian prediction should be supported---would be radical changes in cosmology (and the occurrence of life therein) as argued above and in my essay.
Thanks for your good work.
Richard Benish
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 22:06 GMT
Hi George,
I like your essay and I like your positive philosophy. It is a much welcome counterpoint to that of Mad Max and his Minions. I wish I could be as gracious as you are....but I need to say it as I feel it. I do think emotion is a part of the mix of reality and is a strong factor in "choice".
For example: I posted on one of the minions blogs "your emperor is totally nude (in Italian)". This minion was a determinist but his emotion (or greed) caused him to delete my post (followed by my score plummeting). Was his choice determined by mathematics?
Do take a look at my essay, before "they" remove this post.
Thank you for your comprehensive, readable, and joyful essay.
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 22:34 GMT
Thank you Don - I look forward to reading your essay. Perhaps I just have a sunnier disposition than many - I do think civility and humor are a better way of getting a message across, but it can be hard not to "rise to the bait" as the saying goes.
Science does not do itself a favor when it is cloaked in arrogance and dismissiveness. But then, neither does religion....
Regards - George
Don Limuti replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 03:15 GMT
Hi George,
I could use some of your level headedness.
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 17:43 GMT
I like this one a lot George..
I strongly agree with your notion of Cosmic Intentionality, although we may differ about its origin. I greatly appreciate that you avoided the view of entropy as disorder entirely, and I think this added to the clarity of your presentation of entropy-related points. Tending toward greater homogeneity is a more useful metaphor. I like the focus on non-linear phenomena driving complexity, and on minimization strategies selecting for islands of order within the parameter space. It suggests that optimization problems found in the Calculus of Variations are a major part of the activity of living beings to maintain a livable state.
I disagree strongly with the notion of the 100 monkeys on typewriters; I don't think they could ever write Shakespeare, for the same reasons I spelled out to DeDeo regarding Borges' example with hexagonal rooms. One needs to also apply some condition of directionality, because a purely random sequence will not duplicate all of the elements of properly structured syntax - no matter how many trials there are. In
my essay, I argue that what accomplishes this is non-associativity in higher-d Maths. I relate the Octonions to the Reflexive Universe idea of Arthur Young, as a way to explain the emergence of consciousness.
I'll continue below.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 18:04 GMT
I like that you reject Reductionism as a default position..
I agree that bottom-up does not give the full picture, and that only a balance of top-down creativity with the bottom-up causality shows us the universe as it is. But my conversation with Tevian Dray at GR21 confirmed that there is a directional structuring in higher-dimensional Maths that even a lot of top experts fail to take into consideration. Arthur Young's work takes a process-theoretic view, and focuses on seven stage sequential evolution. This can be put into non-mathematical and personal terms, if the sequential levels of abstraction are strung into sentences.
One, open, as multiplicity and formless nothingness, finds peace in true relation and knows all as self.
A poem from the octonions... And I have several dozen more examples.
I like your inclusion of love and the notion it is universal. I think all living beings serve love on some level, but not all are aware of doing so; it appears that the ability to perceive and acknowledge love as a motivator is a hallmark of higher-evolved species and sentience. If one uses dictionary definitions, it is easy to show that even some rather barbaric acts satisfy the conditions of love service, but being conscious that love enters the picture seems to select for kindness over cruelty, as well as for cooperation.
So I find a lot to appreciate with this essay. While I am not in total agreement, you do hit the mark fairly often, and you are instructive about things that would otherwise be ignored - to our detriment. Thanks for sharing your insights.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 02:17 GMT
Jonathan-
Thank you for your detailed attention and kind remarks. I am presently in Colorado celebrating the birth of another grandson (one more beautiful reason to believe in love as primary intentionality), so a bit behind in my reading, but I will tackle your essay as soon as I can.
While I claim no knowledge of higher math beyond my academic studies, which ended in 1975, I am leery of any claim that math constructively imposes directionality --- except to the extent it has picked up the intentions of its observer/discoverers. I agree however, that there is mystery in math, as your quote suggests: "One, open, as multiplicity and formless nothingness, finds peace in true relation and knows all as self." This statement is quite consistent with the metaphysics of creation I explored in my 2015 FQXi essay The Hole at the Center of Creation. Something strange and mysterious happens when the One is distinguished from the void. At the same time, that distinction is not intention - it is the consequence of intention.
As for the 100 monkeys, let's let them keep typing. Perhaps we will eventually find out who is right...
Robert Groess wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 20:51 GMT
Dear George Gantz,
Thank you for your lucid and upbeat essay. There are many things we agree upon and I am particularly intrigued by your perspective of whether intentionality can be recognized mathematically as a statistical anomaly (such as the group of monkeys on typewriters versus Shakespear himself). While I've heard this argument before, your essay has provided a perspective I did not have before. Thank you for that. I also wanted to let you know that I enjoyed your essay and have in the meantime, given it a rating too.
Regards,
Robert
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 02:28 GMT
Robert - Thank you, I have achieved my aim if I have given one reader a new perspective. Of course, the point of the 100 monkeys analogy was not to suggest we can tell the difference between mere randomness and intentionality on the basis of statistical tests. Any such distinctions become quite treacherous when we are dealing with infinity. Rather, the metaphor is simply trying to point out the absurdity of a metaphysical commitment to randomness. It's a terrible way to live - and a terrible way to think.
Many thanks - George
Graham Walker Cookson wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 12:36 GMT
Mr. George Gantz
Great conclusion!
This essay provided evidence that cosmic intentionality is a reasonable, consistent and complete inference about why the universe is the way it is. We can see that emergent processes exhibit intention, that systems are attracted to particular states while component units behave collaboratively in selecting those states, and that the entire process across and within levels is reciprocal. These qualities define the operative cosmic principle as love. We have the opportunity to embrace and reciprocate this love, with gratitude, joy and delight, and to believe that we are a meaningful part of a grand purpose.
However, where in our current standard model of the universe is the structure required to support cosmic intentionality? I think a greater structure is required to support your idea of a cosmic intention. At the risk of sounding self-promoting, my Reflective Field Theory may provide such a structure. At least, it provides a starting point and structure to expand your ideas. I think you would find my essay Our Emergent Universe interesting. You have my vote of a 10, great explanation of the issues. Philosophical questions need to be addressed like, “Exactly where and how do laws of nature exert influence and order?” I think my model points in the right direction. I would like to read your reaction.
Thank you, Graham
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 02:40 GMT
Graham - Thank you for the vote of confidence and enthusiasm. I look forward to tackling your essay soon. At the moment I am in Colorado welcoming a new grandson - another fabulous reason to believe in the primacy of love as cosmic intentionality!
One of my goals in the three FQXi essay contest I have participated in has been to bring the philosophical issues to the fore. As Maimonides said: "he who wishes to attain to human perfection, must therefore first study Logic, next the various branches of Mathematics in their proper order, then Physics, and lastly Metaphysics." Math and physics, in particular, have failed to come to terms with the metaphysical implications of the end of the Newtonian worldview. See: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2381
Regards - George
Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 02:00 GMT
Hi George,
Having enjoyed your previous fqxi essay quite a lot (Lev said it should've taken the first place), we've been particularly looking forward to our exchange in this round. So, this is just a little reminder, since the time for that is coming to a close. In that regard, your questions above aren't quite clear to us. Please feel free to clarify them on our page.
Good luck!
Alexey.
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 02:41 GMT
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 07:28 GMT
Dear George Gantz
If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.
I inform all the participants that use the online translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.
Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.
New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of the materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.
Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same in your theme
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 03:29 GMT
Dizhechko -
Descartes is one of my heroes - I wrote a senior thesis on Descartes, Hume and Wittgenstein, but Descartes is the one who continues to fascinate and resonate. Have you read "Descartes Bones"?
I look forward to reading your essay!
-George
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 08:42 GMT
Dear George Gantz,
Descartes I read a long time ago, when I was 20 years old.
In philosophy I was looking for an answer to the question: "What is the matter?" The answer I not found. Then I went to the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, which allowed me to say that space is the body of God who works wonders. Moving space-matter became the basis of the New Cartesian Physic, which explained the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of which force on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck’s constant to the speed of light.
This and other achievements make me ask you to help me to develop it further in FQXi. Rate my essay.
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 15:26 GMT
Dear George,
You are a poet, from the flock of starlings , the dancing waves and shimmering surfaces, the sunflower's artihmetic, also the 100 monkeys (I should take a minimum of hundredthousand) and the cause that makes a ball rolling, all these examples are an everyday beauty inviting us to like our life.
Then you continue indeed as a poet: "Galaxies emerge in a cosmic...
view entire post
Dear George,
You are a poet, from the flock of starlings , the dancing waves and shimmering surfaces, the sunflower's artihmetic, also the 100 monkeys (I should take a minimum of hundredthousand) and the cause that makes a ball rolling, all these examples are an everyday beauty inviting us to like our life.
Then you continue indeed as a poet: "Galaxies emerge in a cosmic gravitational dance" their goal is to minimalise local entropy... that minimazes avaerage energy losses. But.... how did entropy get this height. Our perceptions of this reality indicate a certain "goal" like you indicate, but this also means that in an earlier point of the time dimension this goal has already been achieved...
Then you mention :"self-reflective conscious beings is the pursuit of science"
Here we are touching the essence "Consciousness" Here you indicate that consciousness is searching for the whatness. Maybe however it is the other way around and Consciousness is the origin of the emerged reality as we are aware of.
We humans are reciprocally connected, I fully agree with you, surely when you add : "a history of emergent threads weaving connections to all living things, to all times and places,and to the universe as a whole." This is the essental phrase for me in your beautiful written essay.
"Love flowing through the Universe" Our emergent reality has given us not only love but also hate and war. These two "feelings" are the origin of natures way to survive and its procreation. Reality is not only poetic dear George...but you are indeed a grandfather which I am not despite my four children and age of 71, and I think that that experience could make a man more optimistic.
You are ending with a question, the same question I am posing myself since years, this question has given me some answers that I am after the same search as yours am giving in
my essay : The Purpose of Life".
I hope that you will find some emergeing time to read it, leave an esteemed comment and maybe a rating.
best regards and thanks for your essay.
Wilhelmus
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 03:25 GMT
Thank you Wilhelmus - Poetry (in prose form) is a vehicle to convey ideas that reason alone may not be able to convey. It is a beautiful and loving world to me. It was my intention to share this, and I am pleased that you like the effort.
I did read your essay - I did like the poetry of TS Total Simultaneity and TC Total Consciousness!
I wish you well in the contest!
-George
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 20:39 GMT
Dear George Gantz,
Thanks for a wonderful essay. My eyes watered at your description of the starlings, and related it to your bicycle racing days. "Wild and crazy fun." Today my wild and crazy fun is mental, but you reminded me of my younger, physical, days of wild and crazy fun.
You place things in perspective. The "crucial difference between intentions and agency. Intentions are behaviors that can be observed. Agency is a quality that must be inferred." Perhaps a slight redefinition of "intention", but the point is that
agency must be inferred. Your 'Shakespeare in the monkey gibberish' nicely illustrates that, "
it is correspondingly impossible to determine if this universe was written by randomness or by intention." That is key. So how do we decide? I address that in my essay, which I hope you will read and comment on. I loved your "
Hole at the Center of Creation", but this year you have surpassed yourself.
You have probably the best thought I have found in this contest:
"
The universe has given us life, beauty, joy and self-reflective consciousness – it has loved us. In turn, it is possible for each of us to reciprocate this love."
It is reciprocal. Your grandson "loves the world … and the world loves him back." And so for your new Colorado grandson (where my grandsons live.)
"Choose as you will, but I believe the Universe is meant to be lived in, to be explored, and to be loved."
Yours, in gratitude,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 03:27 GMT
Edwin - Thank you for the kind comments! I enjoyed reading your essay and found it profound and a bit beyond my technical capabilities to absorb completely. IT does look like you are doing well in the contest - good luck in the race to the finish!
-GEorge
Stefan Keppeler wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 14:00 GMT
Dear George,
the topic left room for interpretations, you went for the cosmic scale. You argue clearly, why you prefer to see intention whenever you have the choice. Your essay is nice to read and comforting. I like your pictures, especially the flocking of birds! Myself, I went for the question whether goal-oriented behavior on macroscopic scales is at all compatible with "mindless mathematical laws" on microscopic scales. I answer this question positively and I wonder whether you'd find this conclusion comforting. I'm leaning towards the naturalist side, in particular methodologically, but I also find joy and delight in exploring the universe. We started with different questions and cover different aspects of the topic, but concerning the attitude resulting from the choices you offer at the end of your essay, we do not end up all that different.
Cheers, Stefan
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 18:12 GMT
Thanks Stefan - I enjoyed your essay, which nicely threads the needle between intention as epiphenomenon and intention as a cosmic essential. I have always admired, but never fully accepted, compatibalist arguments. I suppose I'm just an absolutist at heart...
Cheers - George
Daniel de França Diniz Rocha wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 14:55 GMT
Dear George,
Thank you for the comment on my essay. Indeed there is a resemblance between your topic and mine. But I think while I went to a more evolutionary point of view, you went to a very beautiful poetic route. It indeed touched my heart seeing how, indeed, everything seem to self organized, despite the aparent lack of purpose in the universe, and that there is a sense of flow in all of that. This gives a reason to see purpose and not chaos to those who wishes to find a reason to exist, that our life has some value.
When you gave your grandsone as an example of the huge flow of love, as part of the universe's purpose in minimizing entropy, while exploring the environment, did made me a drop a couple of tears. It made me see through your eyes how something so simple can be an atom of the huge large scale principles of the universe.
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 18:19 GMT
Daneil - Thank you so very much for your kind remarks. I shed a tear writing about my grandson, too. Even better, I now have another grandson - one week old - and have been spending time with him as he slowly wakes to the wide world into which he was born. Yes, one can believe the world is deterministic, or completely random, or that our conscious sense of purpose, appreciation of beauty and experience of love is all epiphenomenal. But what a hollow waste that seems to be when we have the opportunity to embrace with all our hearts and our so very rational minds a delightful and joyous experiential and purposeful wonderland.
Many thanks - George
Dan J. Bruiger wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 18:43 GMT
Dear George,
Following up on your invitation to comment, I want to say first of all that I like your writing style, which is both friendly and economical. I know that your larger interest concerns the interface between science and religion (or spirituality), and I share that interest.
I find that the notions of ‘randomness’ and ‘intentionality’ are not well defined in the...
view entire post
Dear George,
Following up on your invitation to comment, I want to say first of all that I like your writing style, which is both friendly and economical. I know that your larger interest concerns the interface between science and religion (or spirituality), and I share that interest.
I find that the notions of ‘randomness’ and ‘intentionality’ are not well defined in the science/math/philosophy community. Perhaps that is unavoidable, since they are essentially human-centric notions. (What does ‘random’ mean but something whose ‘cause’ cannot be determined by a human observer? What does ‘intention’ mean but something imputed by a human observer?) So, the choice between a view of the world as random or intended seems to me artificial. As your essay progresses, there is increasing reliance on mentalist vocabulary (choice, guidance, attraction, disposition, top-down, aspirational, dance, embrace…) culminating in a cosmic vision of “love.” While poetic, I don’t find that using these terms supports your basic aim—which in more physicalist terms seems to be to reconcile the emergence of order with the 2nd Law. It simply restates the scientific problem in “folk” terms. (In fairness, I could be equally critical of the notion of “symmetry-breaking” as a causal force.)
I agree with many points you make (e.g. that the choice of worldviews is logically and empirically undecidable; that “everything is connected to everything else in a limitless web of reciprocity”), and with the spirit of the whole. On the other hand, I cannot make sense of the statement (or definition?) that “intentions are behaviors that can be observed.” I don’t see that the billiard ball and the human manifest intention in any comparable or common way, other than a definition imposed by the human. Humans can certainly read what they know as intention into observed behaviors of animate or inanimate matter. (Cf. Daniel Dennett’s “intentional stance”.) If intentions are to be understood simply as behaviors that can be observed, then why not stick with ordinary space-time description (Dennett’s “physical stance”)? Similarly, I do agree that human consciousness is NOT epiphenomenal, but serves downward causation in the human organism. But that is because there is a “top” to a human being, which performs an executive function. What is the top level of the physical cosmos? If we have recourse to something standing outside nature to fill that (executive) function—God, the “mathematical laws of physics,” or some meta-system of dispositions)—then it is no longer science.
I hope this is helpful and not too harsh, for I did indeed enjoy reading your paper. Wishing you all the best in your philosophical inquires,
Dan
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 20:25 GMT
Dan - Thank you for the thorough read and excellent comments. I agree that one can perceive any particular event as random or intentional - but I do not agree that the difference is artificial or, as you seem to suggest, a matter of semantics. It is a real distinction that matters.
To be clear, my aim is not to reconcile emergence with the 2nd law in physicalist terms. I am rather, trying to highlight that the universal process of emergence points to causal influences extending beyond the physical, hence the increasing use of what you call "mentalist" terms. This is intentional on my part, as are the two stories that bracket the essay.
My definition of the word "intention" may be unusual, but it is critical to illuminate the correspondence of emergent processes across the spectrum of physical, chemical and biological systems. I left it to the end to connect the resulting flowing process across levels to a fundamental causal influence - love. This is, indeed, the "top." I am perfectly comfortably ascribing this causal "top," and the mathematical forms which constrain its flow, to divine influence - but I avoid using theological terms because of the antipathy that many have to religious language. Indeed, you suggest that such ideas would "no longer be science." I agree. The question posed in this contest in a metaphysical one. It cannot be answered from within science. See also my 2015 essay - The Hole at The Center of Creation.
Regards - George
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 12:54 GMT
George,
Hello again. As the contest is ending, I see that I have not commented or scored your essay ...
Flocking birds are amazing. In the Houston area, there are sometimes flocks as you describe. There are also migratory birds such as ducks that travel to and from the coastal area. They fly in V shaped flocks.
Monkeys and typewriters are a favorite topic for the question of randomness. In actual practice though, monkeys tend to hit a single key repeatedly and then make those screaming noises:-) A true random alpha-numeric generator might be a better choice for that example ... if there is such a thing. Once Shakespeare has been created though, you are correct in stating we don't know if it was intentional or not.
Many of the essays use the ideas of entropy and open & closed systems plus information. There might even be a consensus regarding these ideas..
The narrative of the billiard ball and the pool cue is good. A point that I don't think I have seen in any of the essays is the making and the use of TOOLS. A tool has no agency but its creator and its user certainly do.
The idea of an attractor in the solution space is presented in several of the essays. It seems reasonable to me.
Cooperation is definitely an advantage ... AND ... the ability to cooperate and the choice to cooperate are definitely signs of agency.
Regarding reciprocity, it seems like a reasonable idea. I believe that your essay is the only one that I have read that presents this idea. This allows a constraint to move up or down through the hierarchy to all the levels .... if we were in sufficient harmony with the universe, this might even be a way to have one's "will" expressed as an event.
All in all, this was an excellent effort on your part. Well done.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 14:38 GMT
Gary - Thanks for the thorough read and the kind remarks.
Good luck with the 5D's!
-George
Tommaso Bolognesi wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 14:32 GMT
Hi George (addressing both the cyclist and the grandfather),
very well written essay, well structured, a pleasure to read!
Now, following your comments in my page: if you wanted to really force me into one of the two branches of the choice:
1. Universe (or multiverse) from randomness within mathematical forms — intentionality as epiphenomenal, OR
2. Universe from...
view entire post
Hi George (addressing both the cyclist and the grandfather),
very well written essay, well structured, a pleasure to read!
Now, following your comments in my page: if you wanted to really force me into one of the two branches of the choice:
1. Universe (or multiverse) from randomness within mathematical forms — intentionality as epiphenomenal, OR
2. Universe from cosmic generative intentionality - humanity as part of a purposeful process,
I would choose option (1), if not for other reasons, for the fact that, in my opinion, it defines a much more attractive research agenda: trying to explain away the magic of goals and intentionality. This can be done so well w.r.t. biology, as mentioned by several essays here. (It is always a pleasure to reveal the trick behind the magic, for example showing that the specific distribution of word lengths in a printed western language does not reflect a ‘magic’ universal feature of human intelligence, but simply derives from attributing some probability to the blank (word_separating) character.)
At the other side (2) I see a much higher risk to mix a scientific approach with other perfectly respectful… aims and intentions. Some of your passionate passages in support of choice (2) reminded me of the visions by Teilhard de Chardin, in content, style, and tone.
It seems to me, however, that the two choices you describe are just the black and white extremes of an interesting spectrum (I see the narrative benefits of this setting), and I would gladly sit somewhere in the middle. For example, I am absolutely convinced of the important role that emergence, enriched with top-down causation, can offer to the growth of complexity in the universe, and I would not see this feature compatible only with choice (2), but also with choice (1).
In fact, one of the abstract pictures I prefer is that of a deterministic universe, mathematical in the sense of computational, with emergence and top-down causation as possibly the most fundamental drivers of evolution.
I would even accept terms such as ‘sacred’ (as in S. Kauffman’s ‘Reinventing the Sacred’) in connection with these driving forces, but would stop there. In your essay, on the other hand, I perceive the need to describe a physical universe that naturally supports the most transcendental human aspirations, and that reveals divine intentions behind the scenes. Maybe it’s a wrong impression. But if it is wrong, then our views may not be that different.
You write: “I believe this question is, and always will be, from an empirical standpoint, undecidable.” Is this not unreasonably pessimistic? How can we exclude that some day, maybe in the near future, some computer experiment will generate an artificial dynamical system evolving according to simple algorithmic rules, yielding an ecology of agents that resemble the biosphere, and that develop forms of cooperative symbiotic, ’altruistic’ or moral behaviors, without need for a priori design and goal? How would you feel, in this case? Progress in this direction is under way. Wouldn’t this count for you as an empirical way to rule out a grand design and ultimate purpose?
You write: "science is a wonderful and intensely collaborative adaptation that serves to minimize discrepancy between theory and reality and maximize information - effectively exporting entropy to the larger world in the process." Do you have a precise form of exported entropy in mind, for this interesting example?
A rather trivial remark: obviously, the universe does
not love us back. This is clear, for example, to all the children that were killed yesterday, in Syria, by chemical weapons.
Finally, in case you'll find yourself revising the text for publication (e.g. in the Springer Frontiers Series), I have two
minuscule editorial suggestions (pleasing my taste — you may well disagree!):
“On at least one planet, Earth, some of those chemicals reacted” —> remove “Earth”.
“One species, humans, was able to build civilizations and science.” —> remove “humans”.
Sorry for the length. Bye!
Tommaso
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 15:20 GMT
Tomas -
Thanks for the detailed response - is I am drinking my morning latte, I will pretend we are in a virtual coffee shop, intentionally sipping and conversing.
I'm wondering if one might make alternate choices in alternate contexts. For example, choosing (1) for its research implications reflects a reasonable intention to pursue intellectual challenges. This is, of course,...
view entire post
Tomas -
Thanks for the detailed response - is I am drinking my morning latte, I will pretend we are in a virtual coffee shop, intentionally sipping and conversing.
I'm wondering if one might make alternate choices in alternate contexts. For example, choosing (1) for its research implications reflects a reasonable intention to pursue intellectual challenges. This is, of course, somewhat self-contradictory, but if we can extract the motivations of the observer from the phenomenon being studies, looking into the box from the outside, so to speak, then that works. ZFC math and observer independent physics? This is fine, but in my view does not address the big picture - which naturally involves self-reflection and all the paradoxes thus entailed.
I do appreciate the simplicity of the deterministic view - I see it promulgated in many different scientific fields - but I confess it has no appeal to me. It see it as a dead-end, and its premises dull the mind as well as the heart.
As to undecidability, I believe that is unavoidable - a consequence of Godel, Turing, QP and the rest - this was the thesis in my prior essay. Of course, my presentation had some holes in it.....
I do not have a good model for how scientific research exports entropy - but perhaps one can imagine the energy required in the brain to support the orchestrated oscillations in the neuronal microtubules as a scientist arrives at a new theoretical formulation base on experiment -- duplicated in others each time the paper is read...
As to the universe loving us back -- yes, this may be an unfortunate metaphor in light of the tragedy that pervades the human condition. In the case of human caused tragedy, I can point to the disruptive, non-loving choices of other human beings and forgive the universe per se. But tragedy also comes from so-called natural causes - tectonic shifts, asteroid collisions, etc. The problem of evil, theodicy for the believer, is a very deep issue deserving of its own FQXi essay. There is a short answer --- evil is an unfortunate side-effect of free will. The beautiful gift is free will - but, like Pandora's box, once it is open (in my metaphysic - at the beginning) then there is space for evil to flow, even as the universe flows with love.
Thank you for the editorial suggestions!
With regards and affection - George
view post as summary
Anonymous wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 10:16 GMT
George.
An excellent essay, interesting, beautifully written, original, easy to read and with a well argued hypotheses. They were the scoring criteria. But I struggled to rationalise it on first read so didn't comment until perhaps you'd read mine. I'm not sure if you have, but the second read was better, and it's time to chat.
First I firmly agree and conclude undecidability. But...
view entire post
George.
An excellent essay, interesting, beautifully written, original, easy to read and with a well argued hypotheses. They were the scoring criteria. But I struggled to rationalise it on first read so didn't comment until perhaps you'd read mine. I'm not sure if you have, but the second read was better, and it's time to chat.
First I firmly agree and conclude undecidability. But the semantic door opened with "a selection was made" on divergence or interactions. That may or not imply conscious intent so definition was needed, but you introduced "cosmic intentionality", transferring ball interactions to a player or 'the rules'. Certainly behavioural rules exist for cosmic particles, i.e. field alignments. But I struggle to assign conscious intent to the infinite angular relationships between particles and incoming waves, viz;
Take an interaction and momentum exchange between simple rotating spheres or a wave ('function') and a sphere). They may, entirely by chance, meet at any point on the surface. In the centre of mass rest frame; At the equator, one side finds motion LEFT, and the other RIGHT. Near the N pole is anticlockwise, the S pole clockwise (-/+) The combinations vary inversely by the cosine with latitude. Now with standard absorption and re-emission the 'arriving' energy is requantized by the spheres momenta but varies entirely with that tangent point. So certainly a range of outcomes is possible, a semantic leap may admit 'a selection' (with conditions), but considering the full 'Bloch sphere' of attitudes possible could we rationally then make another leap to invoke 'intent'?
I also ask do you think causality 'must' imply determinism? (Tangent points are indeterminable) Can we answer this; Would you find + or - polarity on an equator? Is that not too undecidable or 50:50?
Interestingly I identify how the scenario above classically reproduces QM's predictions, but is humankind yet quite ready for such heresy!?
I should confess I have published a model of an apparently well evidenced recycling cosmology with a fractal mechanism (evident in quasars), which DOES imply a greater repeating pattern. We would then have one universe (at a time, here) though maybe infinitely many nearby and previously!
Very well done for yours and I'm honoured mine is nearby and hope you'll comment honestly on it (the likelihood it'll be passed over for placings yet again is less important).
Best wishes
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 13:47 GMT
Peter (I assume Peter Jackson – it seems you may not have been logged in when you commented) –
Thank you for the careful read and excellent comments. Yes, I did read your essay – I found it difficult to follow but I am in general agreement with key points. Specifically, I would agree that “Nature may meet the conditions for a mathematical universe but it also does so for...
view entire post
Peter (I assume Peter Jackson – it seems you may not have been logged in when you commented) –
Thank you for the careful read and excellent comments. Yes, I did read your essay – I found it difficult to follow but I am in general agreement with key points. Specifically, I would agree that “Nature may meet the conditions for a mathematical universe but it also does so for most physical and meta-physical universes and a 'creator'. All have infinite recursion, in both directions.” An excellent and profound observation. I did stumble on the following sentence – “Maths or matter may imply a creator, who must be created.” This implies infinite regress, which of course one is free to follow – although a single infinite (recursive) first creator is a much simpler speculation.
I cheerfully agree as well with your final conclusion: “No conclusion is possible as to whether or not a cosmic architect created our or any universe.”
In your comment above, I am struck by a thought I had not articulated in my essay. Perhaps the undecidability of the nature of cosmic architecture (random vs. specific) that I discuss in some detail extends down to fundamental QM events at the point of interaction. A billiard ball (simple model of a spinning moving sphere) connects with another billiard ball --- is that precise interaction exactly the one required to send the second billiard ball into the pocket? As we conceptually dive down past the macro-particles to the QM level where the contact is instantiated, do we perhaps not find a choice point --- a single quantum interaction, fundamentally indeterminate, where a 50:50 probability ultimately decides the fate of the second billiard ball? By such interactions the fine tuning constants may have emerged in our universe.
It is a pleasure to converse with you! Perhaps through more conversation we will be able to meet Einstein’s criteria – “we should be able to be explain physics to a barmaid” – or bartender as we should say in the 21st century…
Cheers – George Gantz
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 21:05 GMT
(sigh) Seems I may not have been fully logged in either... - George Gantz...
Michael Manthey wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 01:46 GMT
Dear Dr. Gantz -
Thanks for your comments over my way ["Causality and Teleology"].
Reading your essay felt like a humanistic version of my own views! What follows is headline-type description of this using your own [well-crafted] words.
"Do you believe that what exists is fundamentally an expression of randomness within mathematical forms? Or do you believe in a cosmic...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Gantz -
Thanks for your comments over my way ["Causality and Teleology"].
Reading your essay felt like a humanistic version of my own views! What follows is headline-type description of this using your own [well-crafted] words.
"Do you believe that what exists is fundamentally an expression of randomness within mathematical forms? Or do you believe in a cosmic intentionality that provides generative guidance for the emergence and evolution of our uniquely specified universe?"
I guess that I'm saying that one has both of these simultaneously - my discrete combinatorics generate a unique
generative model. This is our only large-scale disagreement, I think.
"... local structure and order emerges by exporting entropy to the larger environment."
Yes. Both of our [very similar] views rest nicely on Jeremy England's argument for life's emergence via its drive to maximize entropy creation [ie. growth].
"Phillip W. Anderson ... maintains that the hierarchical structure of increasing complexity arises as a function of symmetry breaking, and the resulting whole is more than, and different from, the sum of its parts."
I claim that the mechanism of emergence is to be described by the co-boundary operation, which is the topological version of the "integration" operation in Calculus. [I've not seen this thought elsewhere.] The erection of a new 'integrated' hierarchical level is entropically driven.
"The system searches through available configurations, constrained by mathematical laws and prior history, attracted to one that achieves that goal." This is the hierarchical bubble-up / trickle-down mechanism I describe.
"Self-reflective consciousness emerges, perhaps in the synchronous coordination of quantum behavior ... ." Indeed! 'Quantum behavior' is what I call space-like computation [versus Turing's time-like ditto].
"There is an additional feature to the cascade of emergent processes - they are reciprocally interactive. Reciprocity at the component level enables the system to seek adaptive solutions. Reciprocity between component and system levels is inherent in the dynamic of emergence --- components enable the system to search, and the system attraction to pointer states drives the selection. These relations flow up and down the emergent cascade. In the emergent history of our universe, everything is connected to everything else in a limitless web of reciprocity."
Oh yes! I say that the web is made out of gravity, which is space-like, not time-like, not causal.
"Cosmic intentionality is love flowing through the universe, guiding the emergent cascade. Each prior state evolves and moves towards a higher state, one reflecting a greater degree of intention, attraction, cooperation and reciprocation." Whether the evolved state is "higher" depends though on the degree of organization it represents in its newness. Not all evolution is progress - extinction is also a possibility, but this is a detail.
"While we can observe the actions of the entity ... we cannot observe his/her/its interior state." Right. But:
"From an empirical standpoint, there is no answer. The q
uestion is undecidable." I disagree: If the observer's consciousness is time-like, yes, but if it's space-like [eg. meditative state], this *is* the interior state, and you *are* the intention! Also, re Undecideability, since my view of computation exceeds Turing's formulation, this weakens arguments from this basis.
My conclusion is that the intentionality you mention can be properly identified with entropic gravity - the tendency for all things
without distinction to attract each other. My mod4 construction, with the chakra system in mind, then directly and easily identifies gravity with love.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 14:18 GMT
Michael -
Thank you for the detailed review and comments. Yes, there are many parallels between our theses (as well the theses of other essayists). This is one of the exciting things about the FQXi contests - probing the most difficult of questions with a community of excellent thinkers. The result is --- the whole is greater than the sum of the parts!
You suggest that your model accommodates the simultaneity of the "random" and "intentional" views of the universe. In one sense, I agree with you --- they do appear as two sides of the same coin. However I pose them as opposites in my essay, although the choice between them is indeterminate on the basis of empirical or mathematical investigation.
I do not see that gravity can connect the two. Gravity is, after all, one of the emergent features of our universe. Rather than being fundamental, I would suggest that it is consequential - an emergent property in spacetime that manifests but does not explain cosmic intentionality.
This is clearly worth further discussion --- but alas the contest is nearing an end!
Regards - George
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 14:19 GMT
Sorry - forgot to login. The prior comment is from me. :)
Bruce M Amberden wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 04:52 GMT
Hello George Gantz,
I very much enjoyed your essay; it’s an excellent, literary read. But I think that you assume too much. Given the empirical evidence to date, the universe behaves with mindless, chaotic, deterministic causality according to natural law. If the universe appears to expresses ‘cosmic intentionality’ – well, that is just us anthropomorphizing the universe. Being mindless, the universe isn’t even indifferent.
Causation is the realization that all events are the result of previous events according to natural law. Causation is not reductionist – if anything causation drives emergence and implementation. Determinism and free will are flip sides of the same coin. Free will is a consequence of top-down causation and the loose coupling between complex causal event chains. Both the universe and our minds are causally determined. If they were not, then both would be chaotic and incomprehensible. There would be no galaxies, stars, planets, elements, biology, or us. Without causality, the mind could not form coherent thoughts, as no thought could be the cause of another.
Causal, chaotic evolution is how life and minds with aims and intention arose. Random noise plus natural selection in a chaotic environment driving survival is the engine for the accumulation of complexity and emergence of life.
Intention and purpose are NOT epiphenomenal. A broad look at our accomplishments proves that it is not. Our purpose is our own to make.
As much as I admire your writing, and writing style, I do not think that you have proved your case.
Thanks for the good read.
Cheers,
Bruce Amberden.
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 14:30 GMT
Thank you Bruce -
In a way, your comment proves my point. If you restrict the admissible evidence to the empirical, then it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the universe is deterministic and that intention is anthropomorphic.
I do not see how that is consistent with your statement that intention is NOT epiphenomenal. Nor do I see how one can reconcile determinism and free will. They are not opposite sides of the same coin - the are opposing faces of two different and mutually exclusive coins.
But then again, we are al getting tired at the end of the contest I may be misrepresenting what you are trying to say.... If so, please forgive me.
Cheers - George
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 08:37 GMT
Dear Sirs!
Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».
New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.
New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.
Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 14:42 GMT
Dizhechko Boris -
I did read your essay and found it very difficult to follow. One thread our essays may have in common is the sense that there is a "flow of force" active in the universe that gives rise to aims and intention. This is what I define as cosmic intentionality. My view is that this flow begins outside of space and time - I understand your view to be that this flow is space and time.
Best of luck - George
Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 15:53 GMT
Dear George,
I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to respond to your fine and evocative essay. The problem seems to be that I’m stuck on the horns of your dichotomy. You ask in the Introduction whether I believe that existence is randomness within mathematical forms – I would say yes, at a physical level. But I certainly would not argue that intentionality is an illusion… quite a...
view entire post
Dear George,
I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to respond to your fine and evocative essay. The problem seems to be that I’m stuck on the horns of your dichotomy. You ask in the Introduction whether I believe that existence is randomness within mathematical forms – I would say yes, at a physical level. But I certainly would not argue that intentionality is an illusion… quite a few of the essays here trace the various stages of its emergence in interestingly different ways; it's evidently real and not incompatible with its physical foundations. (You make some quite eloquent statements about this in your essay too.)
As to whether the universe is generated and guided by a cosmic intentionality – that’s also complicated, for me. While I tend to think of God in more personal terms, I do try every day to imagine the world and my own life as the result of divine providence – that seems to me a very healthy way of coping with things.
You say the question is undecidable, and I agree… although not because I can’t tell whether a copy of Hamlet was written by monkeys; I can be pretty sure it wasn’t. But our world, as marvelous as it is in so many ways, isn’t like that at all. The evolution of life, for example, is beautifully explained in great detail in terms of accidentally emergent processes, and I’ve tried to show
in my essay that the physical world and the human mind can eventually be understood in a similar way.
It may seem strange to you, but I don’t see any contradiction between seeing the world as a series of random accidents and seeing it as created and guided: these are just two ways of relating to the same set of facts. Believing in God is a good way of expressing my sense of the meaning of things, but it’s not a good way of explaining anything.
And it seems the world is explainable, to an amazing extent. I love trying to understand how things work and why: where all these dimensions of meaning come from. But to say they come from cosmic intentionality doesn’t help me; it seems too abstract and reductive. What I focus on instead is how new kinds of relationships can emerge in which random events make a difference in new ways – as you summarize in your section on Reciprocity. This happens very differently on different levels.
So I’m more than sympathetic with your feelings about our unique universe, but I don’t think there’s really an either/or here, between a meaningful world and a world that emerges by accident. I agree that the “multiverse” is a terrible idea, but that’s because it explains so little, not because there’s any danger that my choices and decisions might not matter.
At any event, I appreciate your adding your distinctive and heartfelt viewpoint to this strange brew of essays – and best wishes to you and your family from another grateful grandfather.
Conrad
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 13:55 GMT
Conrad - Thank you for your detailed review and comments. I agree we have much in common. However, as I expressed in earlier comments, I am not I comfortable with a compatibalist perspective that both pure randomness and pure intentionality are simultaneously true. The principal reason is that, for me, the two perspectives have radically different implications for how we view our lives. In the face of my personal experiences, including joy, a sense of meaning, and the impulse to make a positive difference in the future course of the world, I see a metaphysical commitment to randomness (the driving force behind the multiverse speculation) as undermining and negative.
That said, I also recognize the potential confusion of cosmic intentionality with determinism. Part of the appeal of randomness is that it is anti-deterministic. For many, the concept of divine agency is tainted with deterministic undertones, and the sense that personal agency and free will is thereby undermined. There are answers to these concerns - but not in this essay contest.....
As I have said to others, I wish we could have to opportunity to sit down and talk about these ideas over a cup of coffee...... Last day - we are all tired!
Many thanks - George Gantz
James Gordon Stanfield wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 23:57 GMT
George Gantz,
Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay, and I would particularly like to thank you for the question about teleological bias (T-bias). This is a term that I am not altogether satisfied with. First off, the word teleological carries a certain amount of religious or spiritual baggage I wish to avoid. In its most basic definition, I intend it to convey the subjective...
view entire post
George Gantz,
Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay, and I would particularly like to thank you for the question about teleological bias (T-bias). This is a term that I am not altogether satisfied with. First off, the word teleological carries a certain amount of religious or spiritual baggage I wish to avoid. In its most basic definition, I intend it to convey the subjective feeling or goal within a sentient being, no matter how primitive, to survive and flourish.
In reading your well-written essay, I noticed my own internal definitions of many of the T-biased words we both use have substantially different meanings to the way you use them. I think I would need to construct a George-Jim Rosetta Stone to translate between them. I find it useful to slightly redefine several of the most common words used in these discussions. These are phenomenal definitions. A sentient being is nothing more than an individuated organism, which is connected to and reacts to the variations in its environment by way of receptor and proprioceptor nerve endings. By this definition a worm can be sentient. Intelligence is the quantitative and qualitative capacity to process and organize information. By this definition, the computer Watson is highly intelligent. Consciousness is the subjective phenomenal experience of the qualia of sentience as a first-person observation of the present moment. An agenda somehow comes out of this and presents itself directly to the subject.
It would occur to us in retrospect that the veracity, completeness and therefore the predictive power of this internalized observation of reality would serve an organism well. But this would beg the question: how, on the evolutionary trail, did an organism’s acquisition of an agenda to extract meaningful and relevant information for survival arise? Somehow, it must be connected to existential threat. But how does the organism come to sense that existential threat? My simplistic answer is that an organism's nerve endings, no matter how primitive, provide the initial feedback. All sentient beings have skin in the game. But there still remains the problem of how that feedback might be converted into consciousness and the sensation of jeopardy.
{Insert hand waving here}
Once the sense of jeopardy has been detected, the obvious back reaction would be a teleological bias to fulfill the dual agendas: stay in the energy flux and avoid destruction. This would require the organism to choose a path through phase space that would provide the requisite energy flux or reservoir needed to maintain the dissipative state of the organism in order to be able to selectively navigate this evolutionary landscape. Adaptive response to the environment occurs over a temporal spectrum from real-time to the life of the species. This would go for the tubeworms living near a steam vent or, as more neural circuitry is thrown at the problem in service of this agenda, an investment banker competing for her share of the billions in bonuses available to maintain herself far from equilibrium.
I generally try to avoid the use of the word ‘intentional’ as it can be confused with the less descriptive philosophical term of art denoting the content or object of consciousness. This definition is unfortunate. Here, I will attempt to provide you with a more complete picture of what I'm trying to get at with the term T-bias as it applies to sentient beings with intelligence and consciousness but it does not apply to any systems or processes that do not have these attributes. It is exclusively a property of life.
Which is to say, I agree with your essay up to the point where you introduce cosmic intention. When you assume the existence of that which is to be explained, then all further explanation stops. Indeed consciousness is mysterious. They don't call it the hard problem for nothing.
Self-identity and self-interest progress in stages. Right after I am born, with my first inklings of self-awareness my identity and my self-interest stop at my skin. Then as I discriminate myself from my immediate surroundings and the active agents within it I soon come to the awareness of my dependence upon these other active agents for my well-being: my family, my friends and my community. I develop a feeling of what is good for these extensions of myself are good for me. And as I extend my self-definition outwards to my school, the company I work for, my country and finally, if all goes well, the entire globe with its social, economic and political connectivity, and with its ecology and environment, it is in my enlightened self-interest to become one with everything. The greatest good for the greatest number might become the end of this outward self-definition, but this is only half the story. This final step is too easily perverted. Utilitarianism has been used for human sacrifice. The final step of enlightened self-interest is to bring back a balance to what I call the I-thou symmetry. If I do not value and protect my own being as an individual then the whole point of my being is lost. This concept is beautifully contained in the Golden rule and in Kant's contrapositive formulation of the categorical imperative: “do not do to anyone else what you would not have done to you.”
As you noted, we have the standard model of particle physics. Just think, if the sciences had been properly funded we could have had the deluxe model!
Best regards,
Jim Stanfield
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 14:12 GMT
Jim - Thanks for the detailed comments, and for the clarifications you offer. I agree with your remarks and the narrative of emerging sentience you offer, although we might use slightly different terms. However, my sense of emergence (and intention) extends to the inanimate world. I see the connections, interconnections and reciprocities crossing the life-nonlife distinction, as well as the life-concisousness distinction. It is all the same universe, and the same dynamic. It just looks different in the varying arenas .
Just as you are not entirely happy with the phrase "T-bias" I m not entirely happy with the phrase "cosmic intentionality". It is my best effort to name what I see as the consistent flow in the current of reality towards specific ends. Perhaps I should call this cosmic T-bias --- the universe is biased in particular ways towards particular ends: emergence; self-organization; complexity; life; intelligence; consciousness.
Sincere regards - George
Member Marc Séguin wrote on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 02:17 GMT
Dear George,
Your essay was fun and interesting to read. I really liked how you describe the "cascade" of the evolution of our universe at the top of page 2.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I agree that the ultimate questions about the fundamental nature of what we observe is basically undecidable (I gave the analogy of driving simultaneously on two interstate highways in my essay for the previous FQXi contest). I also agree with you that top-down causation and "reciprocal interactivity" are very powerful ideas that can help us make sense of the Universe.
In a model where our world is under the intentional control of a God, your hypothesis that God expresses his cosmic intentionality by "controlling" the outcome of quantum events is certainly possible. Of course, I will point out the standard "objection" to any God-type explanation: it just moves the "problem" one level up. The God level can use its intentionality to give purpose to our level, but then, what gives purpose and intentionality to the God level?
I also have some difficulty to understand your use of the word "love" in relation to intentionality or the "guiding" of the evolution of the universe. You seem to say that if an entity gives us something, that entity "loves" us... Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism "give" us light... do they love us?
I think you argue for your hypothesis in interesting ways, but I still think that we do not have to choose between (nihilistic) meaningless randomness or (unexplainable) godly love... there must be some middle ground, and I am searching for it via the co-emergence hypothesis that I defend in my essay.
The important thing is to keep on searching... I wish your essay does at least as well as last time!
See you around,
Marc
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 14:49 GMT
Marc - Thanks for the comment!
Your comment about "God-type explanations" moving the problem up one level is not limited to God-type explanations. Proving the consistency of arithmetic has a similar problem - one must appeal to an additional axiom (creating an arithmetic of one higher level) to prove consistency of the arithmetic below. The same problem exists in the justified-true-belief model of knowledge - one is inevitably engaged in an infinite regression of justifications in the effort to know that something is true. In one sense, "God" is a response to such dilemmas - an infinite frame within which the infinite nested levels can be contained. In theological circles, God is given "uncreated" status - "who is, and who was, and who is to be", or. more curiously "I am who I am."
You have grasped what I am trying to convey with the word love. At the level of conscious sentient beings, love is expressed and felt and reciprocated in behaviors that we can identify through our mirror neurons. We experience it ourselves, and we have the capacity to recognize it in other beings. And yes, it corresponds to the heat and light of the sun (for example). So, yes, in that sense, Maxwell's equations describe an act of love. Moreover, without Maxwell's equations, love among sentient beings would never exist.
So perhaps the cosmic interconnections will bring us together once this contest is over. We can share a plate of Oysters of Nothingness and play with the amusing and fantastic puzzles of the universe....
Regards - George
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 14:51 GMT
Apologies - logged out. The above comment is mine. - George
Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 05:31 GMT
George,
Congratulations!
More at the coffee shop :^)
Yours, Alexey.
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz wrote on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 13:54 GMT
Conrad - Thank you for your detailed review and comments. I agree we have much in common. However, as I expressed in earlier comments, I am not I comfortable with a compatibalist perspective that both pure randomness and pure intentionality are simultaneously true. The principal reason is that, for me, the two perspectives have radically different implications for how we view our lives. In the face of my personal experiences, including joy, a sense of meaning, and the impulse to make a positive difference in the future course of the world, I see a metaphysical commitment to randomness (the driving force behind the multiverse speculation) as undermining and negative.
That said, I also recognize the potential confusion of cosmic intentionality with determinism. Part of the appeal of randomness is that it is anti-deterministic. For many, the concept of divine agency is tainted with deterministic undertones, and the sense that personal agency and free will is thereby undermined. There are answers to these concerns - but not in this essay contest.....
As I have said to others, I wish we could have to opportunity to sit down and talk about these ideas over a cup of coffee...... Last day - we are all tired!
Many thanks - George Gantz
Georgina Woodward wrote on Apr. 12, 2017 @ 02:06 GMT
A clearly written, accessible, essay. I like that you have presented your view as an option and not the certain truth. I also like that you have considered top down influence. I like the personal touches such as, how your grandson subjectively considers the World. I love watching starlings flock too. There were amazing displays in the evening where I grew up as a child. It is a lovely connection...
view entire post
A clearly written, accessible, essay. I like that you have presented your view as an option and not the certain truth. I also like that you have considered top down influence. I like the personal touches such as, how your grandson subjectively considers the World. I love watching starlings flock too. There were amazing displays in the evening where I grew up as a child. It is a lovely connection you made between bike riding and their flight. Perhaps we do witness their daily exhilaration, as they have a limbic system enabling emotion. It is a very nice thought. Overall, I like what you have done but here are some places where I disagree.
” The goal is not to create spiral or other specific shapes but to minimize local entropy. The system searches through available configurations, constrained by mathematical laws and prior history, attracted to one that achieves that goal.” G. Gantz. I don’t think there is any evidence for or mechanisms for the system to search through all available configurations. It is, as I see it , a matter of mechanics; the principle of least action, Newtons first law and conservation of energy.
“There is a critical difference between intentionality and agency. Intentions are behaviors that can be observed.” G. Gantz. Your definition of intention is wrong. It is not a behavior that can be observed but a prior aim, goal or objective. Action/behavior that is observed may or may not be intentional, that is goal driven. Outcomes do not have to be results of prior goals just because they are outcomes. People do sometimes look back and see events as purposeful in hindsight but that is rationalization.
“In this case, the intention (motion and direction) of the billiard ball was imparted to it by the intention (a decision to impart motion and direction) of the conscious human agent. In this example, both the billiard ball and the human have intention.” G. Gantz. Intention is not motion and direction, that would more correctly be called momentum. The latter use of intention, pertaining to the human decision, is the correct usage.
“…We are like the third person discovering a Hamlet manuscript, trying to decide if it was intentionally produced or if it is just an unusual but totally random coincidence…”. G. Gantz. I think it is incorrect to assume that if something is not random it must be intentional and vice versa. Natural processes can be sequential and orderly without an external prior plan. The instruction for reach next step being within the existing configuration of the system and Object universe. Development falls in between being random and planned: controlled, constrained because of physics and chemistry, and macro feedback on the system, sequential because of the foundational sequential passage of time, with an outcome that may be functional but nevertheless not purposely constructed (ie it is without prior goal).
“Cosmic intentionality is love flowing through the universe, guiding the emergent cascade. Each prior state evolves and moves towards a higher state, one reflecting a greater degree of intention, attraction, cooperation and reciprocation.” I’m not sure what
you mean by “state “ in this context, I don’t see relentless ‘upward’ progress. It is evident that more complex states are also broken down or destroyed. There is deposition and erosion, crystallization and dissolving. Growth of galaxies and their destruction. Cycles of growth and death and decomposition. As well as development of biological structures there is also atrophy. There is evolution and diversification of species and there is extinction. Growth of civilizations and collapse. How does highly evolved competitive “arms race” of species such as toxin production, and parasitism and predation fit into your vision of cosmic development?
Sorry if these points gave already been raised and discussed. You have received a great deal of feedback, congratulations, and I haven’t the energy to read it all. Kind regards Georgina
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author George Gantz wrote on Apr. 12, 2017 @ 11:31 GMT
Thank you Georgina, for your kind words and excellent comments. Clearly, I am using the word "intention" with a different meaning - not representing the goal of a conscious agent, but representing the consequential outcome of what some might call the disposition of the system. The billiard ball is perhaps not the best example as it is most often an example of deterministic behavior in a classical system. If we consider this point in the contest of a dynamic system of flocking birds, we can see that the behavior of the system that emerges is intentional (in my definition) but not the goal of an agent, nor the directed outcome from the instincts of the flying birds.
In terms of top-down causation, we have an influence on the consequential outcome of a dynamic system - it is not found in the birds or in the constraints, but in the intention of the system. This is what some have labelled the generative cause (not dissimilar to Aristotle's final cause). This is not bottom-up determinism nor behavior confined by a set of constraints. It is something novel.
Sincere regards - George
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.