Does the universe behave with some intelligence?

[harvey1]

Let's define intelligence as the ability to gather and utilize information in a manner that is algorithmically complex. Let's define an IGUS (information gathering and utilizing system) as a system that is a minimum description of being intelligent.

So, for example, cells are IGUSs and therefore are intelligent in that they can gather information and utilize that information to survive in their environment. Rocks are not IGUSs since they have no known ability to gather information or utilize that information to change their behavior from everything we can tell.

The question is whether the universe has IGUS behavior. In other words, does the universe behave as an IGUS? If so, what is that behavior and how does that behavior demonstrate that information is being gathered and utilized to keep the universe in compliance with a logically consistent nature (etc.)? If not, then please explain how quantum erasure does not demonstrate such information gathering and utilizing behavior. For example, it is my contention that ghost interference can not be understood as anything but IGUS behavior. Please state your reasons and leave your emotional appeals and ad hominem's to other forums.

[Curious]

So, you don't think that there's such a thing as non-applied mathematics?

We are discussing whether the universe is intelligent. My answer reflects my point of view.

It is possible to see that 2+2=6 in the natural world, however you don't see mathematics following that logic. For example, particle accelerators observe strange addition all the time. You might have collisions that have four types of particles and see six types of particles as a result.

A collision between 2 cars can produce 4 bits plus smoke and flame. What does this show exactly?

It's impracticle to make this claim since we cannot view other universes. However, mathematics is based on a handful of simple statements that would be very difficult to claim that the universe is exactly like those axioms. Yet physics follows mathematical theory very closely. If the universe is acting out mathematically to the point of such absurdity that we can construct Calabi-Yau spaces (string theory) from axioms largely discovered over the last two thousand years, then this requires explanation on the part of those who say that mathematics is solely invented.

I don't think so Harvey1. The explanation needs to be supplied by those asserting that it is not. I am not saying that the universal mechanisms are a human construct but mathematics, physics, chemistry etc. is the means by which we make sense of these mechanisms. We use symbolic representations that our minds can comprehend. If the universe evolved to it's present state by the use of certain principles, methods and relationships, then it is no surprise that mathematics can describe these relationships. You can't have it both ways, you seem to, in one argument, claim that the universe is so complex it necessitates a super intelligent designer, while in another, argue that the elegant simplicity of the universe is also evidence of intelligence.

[harvey1]

We are discussing whether the universe is intelligent. My answer reflects my point of view.

Your answer reflects the viewpoint that mathematics is matched to physics, which is not the case. Mathematics is matched to its axioms and rules of inference. The axioms are some basic observations of the world, however there's nothing in those observations that require that mathematics be able to describe inside of black holes, or velocities near the speed of light, etc..

A collision between 2 cars can produce 4 bits plus smoke and flame. What does this show exactly?

It shows that the basic observations that lead to the axioms of mathematics could use an entirely different set of observations that would not yield our mathematics and therefore would not produce mathematics that would tell us much about what's going on inside black holes, etc..

The explanation needs to be supplied by those asserting that it is not. I am not saying that the universal mechanisms are a human construct but mathematics, physics, chemistry etc. is the means by which we make sense of these mechanisms. We use symbolic representations that our minds can comprehend. If the universe evolved to it's present state by the use of certain principles, methods and relationships, then it is no surprise that mathematics can describe these relationships.

If that were so, then mathematics should be no more effective in producing reliable theories than chess or checkers. Physicists don't use the restrictions in chess to determine the restrictions in their theories. There is a reason for this. Those games don't provide rules on why nature is restricted in certain senses, but mathematics does provide such rules that show why nature is restricted.

You can't have it both ways, you seem to, in one argument, claim that the universe is so complex it necessitates a super intelligent designer, while in another, argue that the elegant simplicity of the universe is also evidence of intelligence.

This is not a contradictory position. A one-time use of a random algorithm generator would produce a random algorithm probably doing nothing interesting. However, anyone studying the algorithm would see little in the way of a hierarchy. The order in that algorithm wouldn't show any principles of simplicity since all of its sub-structures would be random.

[Curious]

We are discussing whether the universe is intelligent. My answer reflects my point of view.

Your answer reflects the viewpoint that mathematics is matched to physics, which is not the case. Mathematics is matched to its axioms and rules of inference. The axioms are some basic observations of the world, however there's nothing in those observations that require that mathematics be able to describe inside of black holes, or velocities near the speed of light, etc..

This again is physics and since we are discussing the universe we must use physics. Without the use of mathematics, results in physics would be little more than "things move". As the universe evolves in certain ways the creation of a black hole involves processes that can be observed externally to black holes, for example gravity. A builder is not restricted to making a single building but can, by using the same principles, build anything from a bungalow to a skyscraper. The architect could then examine any building and identify the principles used in construction.

The explanation needs to be supplied by those asserting that it is not. I am not saying that the universal mechanisms are a human construct but mathematics, physics, chemistry etc. is the means by which we make sense of these mechanisms. We use symbolic representations that our minds can comprehend. If the universe evolved to it's present state by the use of certain principles, methods and relationships, then it is no surprise that mathematics can describe these relationships.

If that were so, then mathematics should be no more effective in producing reliable theories than chess or checkers. Physicists don't use the restrictions in chess to determine the restrictions in their theories. There is a reason for this. Those games don't provide rules on why nature is restricted in certain senses, but mathematics does provide such rules that show why nature is restricted.

What a ridiculous argument. I really don't see how you can come to the conclusion that it should be ineffective. If the principles and relationships involved are identified then there is no reason that an extension of these principles cannot be used.

You can't have it both ways, you seem to, in one argument, claim that the universe is so complex it necessitates a super intelligent designer, while in another, argue that the elegant simplicity of the universe is also evidence of intelligence.

This is not a contradictory position. A one-time use of a random algorithm generator would produce a random algorithm probably doing nothing interesting. However, anyone studying the algorithm would see little in the way of a hierarchy. The order in that algorithm wouldn't show any principles of simplicity since all of its sub-structures would be random.

Here you go with the one-time argument. You appear to be a die-hard advocate of the one-shot universe. What you seem to be saying then is that it is not the level of complexity but that the universe shows ANY complexity at all that is evidence of God.
Your position is not contradictory but wholly consistent for someone who has drawn their conclusions before the investigation and therefore uses evidence of anything at all as evidence of God.

[harvey1]

This again is physics and since we are discussing the universe we must use physics. Without the use of mathematics, results in physics would be little more than "things move".

I don't think that's the case. In fact, there's many books written to the lay audience where not one equation is contained in the book. Also, biology, paleontology, anthropology, etc. are largely done without mathematics.

As the universe evolves in certain ways the creation of a black hole involves processes that can be observed externally to black holes, for example gravity. A builder is not restricted to making a single building but can, by using the same principles, build anything from a bungalow to a skyscraper. The architect could then examine any building and identify the principles used in construction.

But, this doesn't tell us how it is that simple axioms could be extended to tell us why there are black holes and what they are like inside them.

If that were so, then mathematics should be no more effective in producing reliable theories than chess or checkers. Physicists don't use the restrictions in chess to determine the restrictions in their theories. There is a reason for this. Those games don't provide rules on why nature is restricted in certain senses, but mathematics does provide such rules that show why nature is restricted.

What a ridiculous argument. I really don't see how you can come to the conclusion that it should be ineffective. If the principles and relationships involved are identified then there is no reason that an extension of these principles cannot be used.

Let's not ridicule each other... So, am I to understand that you think the rules of chess and checkers can be extended to show that black holes should exist? I think you are mistaken. We cannot show black holes exist using number theory, so why would you think that you can show black holes exist by using a set of game rules that would not yield the kind of diversity of theorems that would be needed to describe black holes (e.g., non-Euclidean geometry, etc.)?

Here you go with the one-time argument. You appear to be a die-hard advocate of the one-shot universe. What you seem to be saying then is that it is not the level of complexity but that the universe shows ANY complexity at all that is evidence of God. Your position is not contradictory but wholly consistent for someone who has drawn their conclusions before the investigation and therefore uses evidence of anything at all as evidence of God.

In order for an atheist account to make sense, we would need a whole host of different algorithms of a simple length (e.g., 10-15 lines of code) which naturally simulate inflationary universes if allowed to "evolve" over sufficient CPU time. If it were shown that it actually takes longer algorithms to not get this simulatory effect, then it would seem more likely that our universe is to be expected from pure chance. It would be even more helpful if even simple 1D universes show a natural progression toward inflationary universes. If this were the case, then I cannot help but think that atheism would be correct.

Of course, this isn't the case. We have many, many algorithms and none of them come close to ever producing an inflationary universe like what we see, therefore it must be unlikely that we live in such a universe. If it is unlikely, then it means we must be lucky. Since there are many, many algorithms that DON'T produce such simulations, we must be very, very lucky. So lucky, in fact, that we have no right to reasonably believe that we live in such a Universe.

[QED]

In order for an atheist account to make sense, we would need a whole host of different algorithms of a simple length (e.g., 10-15 lines of code) which naturally simulate inflationary universes if allowed to "evolve" over sufficient CPU time. If it were shown that it actually takes longer algorithms to not get this simulatory effect, then it would seem more likely that our universe is to be expected from pure chance. It would be even more helpful if even simple 1D universes show a natural progression toward inflationary universes. If this were the case, then I cannot help but think that atheism would be correct.

Of course, this isn't the case. We have many, many algorithms and none of them come close to ever producing an inflationary universe like what we see, therefore it must be unlikely that we live in such a universe. If it is unlikely, then it means we must be lucky. Since there are many, many algorithms that DON'T produce such simulations, we must be very, very lucky. So lucky, in fact, that we have no right to reasonably believe that we live in such a Universe.

I myself and other have objected to your counting the number of lines of code required to simulate a universe as a way of measuring probability. Like trying to measure the auction price of a painting by quantifying the amount of paint applied to the canvas, you totally fail to account for the immeasurable leverage between the raw materials and the final work.

When we try to express even the most basic aspect of some natural phenomena it can often take pages of equations. You choose to present this expansion as evidence for the unlikelihood of the phenomenon, whereas I would suggest it simply underlines the leverage afforded by the raw ingredients of nature. Maths is a language we use to express nature, just like the sort of language that requires a thousand words to describe a simple picture.

[harvey1]

I myself and other have objected to your counting the number of lines of code required to simulate a universe as a way of measuring probability. Like trying to measure the auction price of a painting by quantifying the amount of paint applied to the canvas, you totally fail to account for the immeasurable leverage between the raw materials and the final work. When we try to express even the most basic aspect of some natural phenomena it can often take pages of equations. You choose to present this expansion as evidence for the unlikelihood of the phenomenon, whereas I would suggest it simply underlines the leverage afforded by the raw ingredients of nature. Maths is a language we use to express nature, just like the sort of language that requires a thousand words to describe a simple picture.

What the number of lines of an algorithm tells us is the amount of instructions needed to describe a phenomena. When you add an instruction to an algorithm what you in effect doing is adding a layer of complexity to the thing that the algorithm describes or simulates. For example, if we used words to describe Bill Clinton, every time we used a word (e.g., "educated"), we have ruled out what Bill Clinton is not. As we add more and more words, we get very specific to who Bill Clinton is, but at the same time, we rule out 5 billion other people on the planet.

Now, the atheist saying that the universe has innate special qualities to bring about inflating universes is like someone saying that Bill Clinton possesses the most fundamental human descriptive traits that exist. We can conceive of other individuals besides Bill Clinton and we do so by a list of other conceivable traits that someone could possess besides being Bill Clinton. This is why I make so much about the lines of code. Since Bill Clinton needs a fair amount of description to be sure you're talking about the guy who was president of the U.S., etc., we know that it is enormously odd that he would have the most fundamental traits given the other 5 billion people who are alive (and who knows how many people lived or will live in the future).

If there were fundamental traits that all personalities stem from, then logically we would expect those traits to be general traits that need only a few terms to describe. If it were the case that it was Bill Clinton's traits, then it is strange and unexpected that those traits are someone living in our time and so particularly special. If we needed such a view to justify our theory, then our theory should be discarded unless there is insane amount of data to confirm it. If such kind of data doesn't exist, then it must be ruled out as being remotely unrealistic.

This is the situation of atheism. It needs a special view of the universe to justify its belief system, and there's no compelling reason to accept this strange adoption of luck. Therefore, the only appropriate reaction should be immediate rejection of it.

And, on the other hand, mind and truth are neatly tied together and we see the complexity of a universe totally in conformance to law even when the action is at a distance between particles, so we should feel compelled to believe that law and truth exist--hence mind exists.

To be honest, when you throw in things like hot fudge sundaes, taffy apple, and music like Mozart, I can't even understand why we are even having this discussion.

[QED]

I think you are still making the mistake of attempting to measure the complexity of fundamentals by looking at their products. What Bill Clinton is not is infinitely more than what he is. So what?

To be honest, when you throw in things like hot fudge sundaes, taffy apple, and music like Mozart, I can't even understand why we are even having this discussion.

I hope you brush your sweet tooth thoroughly after eating all that sugar, dental caries can be very unpleasant. As for Mozart, if you appreciate the mans genius as much as I do, I sincerely hope you are not suggesting that his work was not all his own.

[harvey1]

I think you are still making the mistake of attempting to measure the complexity of fundamentals by looking at their products. What Bill Clinton is not is infinitely more than what he is. So what?

QED, you have to demonstrate why we should consider a phenomena requiring a larger algorithm to fully describe its behavior as being simpler than a phenomena requiring no lines at all (e.g., nothing). In fact, in information theory it is the minimum message length that specifies how simple something is.

You need to show that MML is a wrong approach to the subject of simplicity. In order to do that, you must define simplicity in terms of concepts that apply to what you are saying. We can then discuss your proposed definition.

[QED]

You need to show that MML is a wrong approach to the subject of simplicity. In order to do that, you must define simplicity in terms of concepts that apply to what you are saying. We can then discuss your proposed definition.

MML is a technique I once applied to detect a threat in a signal (I'll leave you to guess the application). I used a lossless Huffman Compression algorithm to continuously reduce the signal to a bit-count. Any significant reduction in the count was a reliable indication of intelligence (with fascinating scope). On the other hand random background noise would flag the highest counts (being minimally compressible) implying maximum complexity. Now I wouldn't know where to start in applying this to the nascent universe, but I note the paradox between MML simplicity and intelligence.

[harvey1]

Now I wouldn't know where to start in applying this to the nascent universe

Well, let's start with nothing. Is the MML shorter if we are representing as compared to say a self-extracting algorithm that produces universes with galaxies, planets, people, etc.? Why do you feel justified in saying that an algorithm requiring more lines of code to describe such a self-extracting function having ability to follow-through with inflation is less complex than nothing at all (or a simple 1-D world doing nothing interesting)?

but I note the paradox between MML simplicity and intelligence.

An infinite number of information theory theorems is not paradoxial to MML simplicity since you need information theory theorems to define an MML.