On What Basis is an Intelligent God Possible w/o Evolution?

[harvey1]

On another thread in another sub-forum, QED asks:

[H]ow [can] a prime mover, or uncaused cause, such as [ to design, create and keep things on track] have so much intelligence -- a property we otherwise associate with the product of billions of years of evolution in challenging and complex environments like our own[?] Intelligence is only understood by us in these terms. This is mostly why I can't bring myself to jump on your gravy train. I want to know how the rational mind can conceive of disembodied intelligence in posession of all the necessary tools to build a universe.

Anyone have a response to QED?

[QED]

This seems to me to be a very reasonable question and while I really wanted to get your own response harvey1, it would indeed be interesting to gather some wider opinions.

[harvey1]

QED,

Well, it doesn't look like anyone else wants to respond to this (sob sob), so I guess I'll have to pick up the dirty socks around here...

[H]ow [can] a prime mover, or uncaused cause, such as [ to design, create and keep things on track] have so much intelligence -- a property we otherwise associate with the product of billions of years of evolution in challenging and complex environments like our own[?] Intelligence is only understood by us in these terms. This is mostly why I can't bring myself to jump on your gravy train. I want to know how the rational mind can conceive of disembodied intelligence in posession of all the necessary tools to build a universe.

I say that God is intelligent, but this really is only approximately correct. Or, from a certain perspective, it's not true at all.

Okay, first let me say emphatically that God is the laws of physics. That is, let's assume that there are laws which dictate how the universe must be, and for argument's sake let's call those collective laws as God. Assuming I'm saying, at the moment, that they aren't anymore intelligent than a bowl of coleslaw do you have any problem with that?

[QED]

QED,

Well, it doesn't look like anyone else wants to respond to this (sob sob), so I guess I'll have to pick up the dirty socks around here...

Maybe people simply don't have the four or five hours a day it takes to bat this stuff from one side of the table to the other. I know I don't.

I say that God is intelligent, but this really is only approximately correct. Or, from a certain perspective, it's not true at all.

Defining intelligence is going to be a hard one. I've mentioned to you before that I don't think there's any cut-off point at all. I think that the bimetallic thermostat is 'intelligent' and that we are made of trillions of tiny thermostat-like devices with their collective action providing a macroscopic degree of intelligence that everyone is familiar with. I think it's a mistake therefore to look at less complex things than our brains and ask if they're intelligent or not. What should be focussed on instead IMO is the potential for making decisions that we would consider intelligent.

Okay, first let me say emphatically that God is the laws of physics. That is, let's assume that there are laws which dictate how the universe must be, and for argument's sake let's call those collective laws as God. Assuming I'm saying, at the moment, that they aren't anymore intelligent than a bowl of coleslaw do you have any problem with that?

You know I don't think it's reasonable to label the laws of physics as God, but for the sake of argument you can obviously do what you like. Notice though how my definition of intelligence permits the laws to be considered intelligent (because they can lead to evolution and look at how this convinces so many that there must have been an intelligent designer!). Rather, I assume a far more modest position and don't consider anything to be intelligent, not even us, because I've yet to see what I would consider a truly intelligent decision made by anything or anyone in the universe.

[harvey1]

I assume a far more modest position and don't consider anything to be intelligent, not even us, because I've yet to see what I would consider a truly intelligent decision made by anything or anyone in the universe.

That sounds preposterous to me since if intelligence is to mean anything at all, it must at least refer to human behavior in terms of analyzing a situation and coming up with solutions that were not genetically encoded in our genes. That is, intelligence in terms of biology is the attribute of a functional brain.

Now, how is it that I say that intelligence is not only an attribute of a functional biological brain? As I said many times already, I think the principle of causality implies a satisfaction relation, and I think this relation has an attribute of intelligence to it.

For the sake of argument, let's say that the satisfaction relation doesn't have an intelligent attribute. In that case, assuming you agree there is such a thing as a satisfaction relation, what makes the satisfaction relation work (i.e., we are assuming the satisfaction relation is a priori to any event that follows from X being true)?

So, for example, let's say that the early universe is a Euclidean instanton that is about to inflate. A material causal intepretation of this event would not be based on a satisfaction relation. It might state that the conditions were unstable and therefore some symmetry were in the process of being broken. I've already mentioned the material causation problems with that view.

If we consider another approach, the instanton satisfies a certain condition for the existing symmetry to be broken, and because it satisfies that condition, the symmetry is broken. The satisfaction relation must "consider" the following factors:

1. What possible conditions keep the symmetry from breaking?
2. What possible conditions require symmetry breaking?
3. What is the current state of all the relevant objects ?
4. Is there any other interpretation possible warranting no action?
5. Is this interpretation consistent with all truth statements with regard to the objective nature of reality?
6. What degree of symmetry breaking is needed to satisfy the minimum requirement of this interpretation?
7. Let the symmetry breaking event "occur"
8. Did the symmetry breaking event satisfy the interpretational requirement?
9. If not, then repeat (1)

Now, this is not necessarily comprehensive, but you get the idea that a satisfaction relation (which is needed in a principle of causality), has a property similar to an intelligent attribute.

So, assuming that such a satisfaction relation exists (i.e., there are laws of physics that exist "out there" which are not just regularities), please tell me how the satisfaction relation works without an intelligent mind. If you think it is all a mystery, then my answer is therefore God's mind is a mystery. If your answer is that all of this "just is," then my response is that God's mind "just is."

My main point here is that there is no reason to say that the satisfaction relation lacks an intelligent attribute. In fact, this is really what humans do when they exercise intelligence. They are using a type of decision theory process in their brains which relies on a satisfaction relation. In our heads, this satisfaction relation is resolved in a biological manner. However, at the fundamental Universe level, this satisfaction relation is simply an attribute of causality. No satisfaction relation, no causality. No causality, everything is without meaning. In other words, there must be causality for there to exist anything (including space, time, matter, energy, or "nothing" at all), and therefore causality must be the case. Since causality must be the case, there must be a satisfaction relation. And, hence, there is an attribute in the Universe that has this intelligent attribute.

Now, since the satisfaction relation must consider all the possible conditions, all the possible intepretations, all the truth statements in the Universe, the only intelligent attribute that can do that is the mind of God. That is, an omniscient mind possessing infinite intelligence, all-knowledge.

Therefore, an infinite intelligence can be shown to exist in the Universe at this fundamental level without a biological function to make it work.

[QED]

That sounds preposterous to me since if intelligence is to mean anything at all, it must at least refer to human behavior in terms of analyzing a situation and coming up with solutions that were not genetically encoded in our genes. That is, intelligence in terms of biology is the attribute of a functional brain.

At least? More like at most. Of course intelligence means something; it's what takes place when two dissimilar metals, with different thermal expansion coefficients are welded together to form a bimetallic strip, and are subject to a change in temperature for example. All the 'grandeur' of human behavior is constructed from tiny behaviors similar to this and while almost completely obscured by the fantastic sequence of events that lead to up to the analysis of a situation by a human brain, stick same brain in an MRI scanner and give it something to analyse and you can watch all the tiny thermostats clicking away before your very eyes.

Now, I've read through the rest of your post and I am uncertain what you mean by 'satisfaction relation'. How does this relate to the excitation of atoms in a metal in response to heating for example?

[harvey1]

Now, I've read through the rest of your post and I am uncertain what you mean by 'satisfaction relation'. How does this relate to the excitation of atoms in a metal in response to heating for example?

If there are laws that exist outside the universe, then those laws must be exercised as the conditions change. What determines how the laws will affect the atoms? Quantum-mechanical laws must be obeyed, and yet, if the laws are "out there," then how is it that a quantum law is satisfied in a particular situation. There is a degree of consciousness in force on the part of these laws that "know" that these relations have been satisfied. That is, there is a satisfaction relation which exists which establishes the satisfaction between what the laws say and how the material world is allowed to function.

[QED]

If there are laws that exist outside the universe, then those laws must be exercised as the conditions change. What determines how the laws will affect the atoms? Quantum-mechanical laws must be obeyed, and yet, if the laws are "out there," then how is it that a quantum law is satisfied in a particular situation. There is a degree of consciousness in force on the part of these laws that "know" that these relations have been satisfied. That is, there is a satisfaction relation which exists which establishes the satisfaction between what the laws say and how the material world is allowed to function.

Now you say "laws that exist outside the universe". But surely the laws are inside, and here I'm with Curious that these laws are descriptive of something "filling the universe" rather than being prescriptive. Forces are woven into the fabric of space and energy reacts accordingly -- like a trampoline governs the bounce of its user. Your argument is like Bro Dave's in that because our language uses terms like "design" and "know" when discussing evolution he thinks that this is evidence for a designer and knower. Laws in this anthropocentric way of thinking might seem to require a law maker and a law abider, but we know this is to be a fallacy arising from the literal interpretation of what are in fact metaphors.

[harvey1]

Now you say "laws that exist outside the universe". But surely the laws are inside, and here I'm with Curious that these laws are descriptive of something "filling the universe" rather than being prescriptive.

Then why are all the quantum gravity theories based on prescriptive laws?

[QED]

Now you say "laws that exist outside the universe". But surely the laws are inside, and here I'm with Curious that these laws are descriptive of something "filling the universe" rather than being prescriptive.

Then why are all the quantum gravity theories based on prescriptive laws?

Are they indeed. If the laws are merely prescriptive they can be broken. That must make the theories difficult to evaluate.