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]

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.

I was in fact talking about physics but since you bring it up, to understand the mechanisms involved in biology it is necessary to use mathematics otherwise how could we know the amount of energy released by breaking ATP to ADP for example? Paleontology requires the number of bones that a particular species has in it's skeleton to check whether a similar skeleton is of the same species. Without mathematics how could we do this? As for anthropology, this would be incomplete if we were not to study the use of mathematics within the culture we are investigating. Since we are discussing the universe it is probably better to concentrate on mathematics relating to physics.

...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.

I get to this in the next point.

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.)?

Gosh, you are very sensitive. By saying the argument is ridiculous does not equate to ridiculing you Harvey1. The reason why I said this of the argument is because the rules of chess tell us about the game of chess and the rules of checkers tells us about checkers. In chess, it is possible to see the final position of the game and to work backwards, through understanding the rules, and eventually come to the initial position of every piece. That is the limit of the rules of chess, it tells us about chess.
It is also possible to reach a final position that you have not met before by following the same rules.
Now, by understanding certain mathematical and physical properties it is also possible to work backwards in our own chess game(ie. the universe) to attempt to discover the starting position, but it is also possible to follow these rules and come to other possible configurations within these rules (such as black holes), just like in the game of chess. It is unlikely though that the universe became as it is because a knight moves 2 forward and 1 to the side and nobody suggested that it did. The rules for black holes are however similar to the rules for the moons orbit and of nuclear fusion.

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.

And what exactly is the algorithm to leads to God or mind?
IT IS NOT LUCKY that we live in such a universe as this, IT IS NECESSARY. As the universe is full of countless other galaxies it is not obvious that all came about at the same time or from a single isolated incident. Many galaxies are much older than ours and many are younger. IF all galaxies originated from a single point, then the different ages of the galaxies would suggest that these might have come about at different relative times. Such a non-inflationary 1D universe that came about could quite possibly become part of a larger multi-dimensional universe that is able to incorporate the structure of the 1D universe into its own. As the zero-point origin would be eqivalent to eternity in relation to the inflationary universe time -line, then why is it unreasonable to suggest that untold non-inflationary universes might come into existence which are then either left intact, and possibly imperceptable, or incorporated into the ever growing universe that we see today? Perhaps this type of universe is a predatory universe that assimilates all that it meets, whether 1D,2D or 999D. The incorporation of these other "universes" could extend the algorithm to contain other variables, leading to far more complex structures until a universal super set is reached. This might be why we are unable to go look beyond the time when the rules were similar to the ones we observe today.
How about this for a simple algorithm that leads to an inflationary universe:
U(new)+U=U
This would also explain the initial super expansion and the subsequent slowing down of the expansion as U(new) becomes smaller in relation to U.

[harvey1]

As for anthropology, this would be incomplete if we were not to study the use of mathematics within the culture we are investigating. Since we are discussing the universe it is probably better to concentrate on mathematics relating to physics.

I think we must have a different conception of mathematics. When I say that the universe is mathematical, I don't mean that we can count. What I mean is that the patterns of its ultimate constituents, as expressed by physics, is restricted by mathematical patterns (e.g., topological spaces, linear and nonlinear equations, differential equations, etc.). Prior to Kepler and Galileo, the use of mathematics in science was not as common. In fact, a little earlier in the Middle Ages all natural philosophy spurned mathematics. It was when mathematics was shown to be of a practical benefit that it became more common to use mathematics.

Gosh, you are very sensitive. By saying the argument is ridiculous does not equate to ridiculing you Harvey1.

Well, when my first reaction is to say to the other person that they are making an even more of a ridiculous argument I have a clear sense that we are going down the wrong path.

The reason why I said this of the argument is because the rules of chess tell us about the game of chess and the rules of checkers tells us about checkers. In chess, it is possible to see the final position of the game and to work backwards, through understanding the rules, and eventually come to the initial position of every piece. That is the limit of the rules of chess, it tells us about chess. It is also possible to reach a final position that you have not met before by following the same rules. Now, by understanding certain mathematical and physical properties it is also possible to work backwards in our own chess game(ie. the universe) to attempt to discover the starting position, but it is also possible to follow these rules and come to other possible configurations within these rules (such as black holes), just like in the game of chess. It is unlikely though that the universe became as it is because a knight moves 2 forward and 1 to the side and nobody suggested that it did. The rules for black holes are however similar to the rules for the moons orbit and of nuclear fusion.

This misses my point. It's not any ole' rules that generate the rules by which the universe lives by. We cannot take the rules of chess or the rules of checkers and see how black holes are. However, we can use the simple axioms of a few branches of mathematics to describe such distant and bizarre phenomena. I want to know from you why you think mathematics is so effective given the fact that the mathematical axioms came before the need to create the math to describe black holes, etc.

And what exactly is the algorithm to leads to God or mind? IT IS NOT LUCKY that we live in such a universe as this, IT IS NECESSARY. As the universe is full of countless other galaxies it is not obvious that all came about at the same time or from a single isolated incident. Many galaxies are much older than ours and many are younger. IF all galaxies originated from a single point, then the different ages of the galaxies would suggest that these might have come about at different relative times.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. The big bang is already established fact.

Such a non-inflationary 1D universe that came about could quite possibly become part of a larger multi-dimensional universe that is able to incorporate the structure of the 1D universe into its own.

Why does it do this? What if it doesn't do this, do you rule out that possibility?

As the zero-point origin would be eqivalent to eternity in relation to the inflationary universe time -line, then why is it unreasonable to suggest that untold non-inflationary universes might come into existence which are then either left intact, and possibly imperceptable, or incorporated into the ever growing universe that we see today?

Sure. But, why not the whole universe coming to exist 5 minutes ago stocked with memories and thoughts about what we think happened billions of years ago. Isn't that possible too?

I think we have to be realistic. By being realistic we have to look for the most simplist approach to the beginning which doesn't require all this hoopla of untold non-inflationary universes coming into existence for no reason (or our universe born 5 minutes ago stocked with memories and thoughts). If we don't wish to be realistic, then why not just go with the universe is 5 minutes old solution?

Perhaps this type of universe is a predatory universe that assimilates all that it meets, whether 1D,2D or 999D. The incorporation of these other "universes" could extend the algorithm to contain other variables, leading to far more complex structures until a universal super set is reached. This might be why we are unable to go look beyond the time when the rules were similar to the ones we observe today.

Why does this kind of complexity happen? Why can't we program this level of sophistication using the most advanced computers in the world? Even smart people such as yourself could not do it.

How about this for a simple algorithm that leads to an inflationary universe:
U(new)+U=U
This would also explain the initial super expansion and the subsequent slowing down of the expansion as U(new) becomes smaller in relation to U.

Okay. Simulate U in a PC and send it off to some cosmologists. They would love to see how it all works. You would be famous!

[Curious]

I think we must have a different conception of mathematics. When I say that the universe is mathematical, I don't mean that we can count.
...This misses my point. It's not any ole' rules that generate the rules by which the universe lives by. We cannot take the rules of chess or the rules of checkers and see how black holes are. However, we can use the simple axioms of a few branches of mathematics to describe such distant and bizarre phenomena. I want to know from you why you think mathematics is so effective given the fact that the mathematical axioms came before the need to create the math to describe black holes, etc.

Ok I put the quotes above together to show my point. Mathematics is nothing more than addition, or as you put it, counting. By knowing addition, we are able to use reverse addition( subtraction), addition groups or sets(multiplication) and reverse addition sets(division). All mathematics consist of these simple operators which all come down to, yes you guessed it... addition. If the universe was created by addition, then all that it would ever become could also be described by addition or the offshoots of addition. That we are able to describe and work out the unseen is due to our knowledge of addition. There is not one thing that is created mathematically that cannot be described mathematically if we know which branches of addition we are to use. Where you imagine a vast array of differing equations underpinning the whole of reality, I see nothing more than variations on a theme.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. The big bang is already established fact.

It has never been established that it was the first or last big bang.

Such a non-inflationary 1D universe that came about could quite possibly become part of a larger multi-dimensional universe that is able to incorporate the structure of the 1D universe into its own.

Why does it do this? What if it doesn't do this, do you rule out that possibility?

I rule out nothing as a possibility.

...Sure. But, why not the whole universe coming to exist 5 minutes ago stocked with memories and thoughts about what we think happened billions of years ago. Isn't that possible too?

I can't say anything is impossible but I really think it has to be backed by the maths to take it seriously.

I think we have to be realistic. By being realistic we have to look for the most simplist approach to the beginning which doesn't require all this hoopla of untold non-inflationary universes coming into existence for no reason (or our universe born 5 minutes ago stocked with memories and thoughts). If we don't wish to be realistic, then why not just go with the universe is 5 minutes old solution?
...Why does this kind of complexity happen? Why can't we program this level of sophistication using the most advanced computers in the world? Even smart people such as yourself could not do it.

I don't see how addition can be thought of as particularly complex. If we are to look at the most simple approach then addition is about as simple as it gets.

Okay. Simulate U in a PC and send it off to some cosmologists. They would love to see how it all works. You would be famous!

Done it. I didn't get humans or anything but got I got a pretty good approximation of several orbital star clusters. This doesn't prove anything though as I suppose I, as programmer, could have been playing Gods part in the simulation. As for sending it off to cosmologists and becoming famous, why on earth would I want to be famous?