Before the Big Bang

[SeaPriestess]

I found this article fascinating as it helped me to understand the basics around Multiverse theory. I was initially curious about arguments against the "Prime Mover" idea. Now that we have a pretty good theory about the energy that existed/exists prior to the big bang, the question is no longer who/what set the big bang in motion but could there be an intelligent nature to the energy that has always existed from which hot big bangs occur and create universes?

[Divine Insight]

could there be an intelligent nature to the energy that has always existed from which hot big bangs occur and create universes?

I think we need to be very careful here in what we mean by "intelligence".

What we might be tempted to call "intelligence" might actually be nothing more than a consistent pattern of behavior.

In other words, intelligence does not automatically equate to sentience, or a consciousness that is self-aware.

Consider the following. Let's say we have a bunch of objects that are identical I'll just use coins here as an example, but the actual objects wouldn't need to have recognizable printing on them.

Let's say that these coins are just normal everyday coins. If we then toss them onto a flat surface they will just land randomly with no sign of "intelligent behavior".

But now let's imagine that these coins are all magnetized in precisely the same way. For this example let's allow the magnetization to be quite complex, (i.e. more than just two poles).

Now lets imagine that we toss a bunch of these magnetized coins onto a flat surface, and they instantly align themselves into a flat sheet where every coin is touching exactly four other coins. Not only this but they are all aligned in precisely the same way. They are either all heads up, or all tails up, and they are also all aligned to that all heads or tales are oriented in the same direction.

Immediately we would say that something "intelligent" is going on here.

We could then look into the matter scientifically and realized that all the coins are simply magnetic in precisely the same way and this is what makes them appear to be "intelligent" when they are randomly tossed onto a flat surface.

The scientist would then say that there is no "intelligence" going on here. What's happening is just the result of the way the coins are naturally magnetized. In other words, the coins aren't "sentient". They aren't aware of themselves, or what's actually going on. They simply do what they do because of the nature of their magnetic properties.

However, their behavior appears to have an element of "intelligence" to it. Far more so than coins that aren't magnetized and just fall randomly when tossed onto a flat surface. A proponent of "Intelligent Design" would then claim there there must have been an intelligent designer who designed this magnetization of the coins. In other words, the claim here is that there must have been a sentient being, who not only designed the coins to behave like this, but also consciously wanted this result to take place.

So now getting back to your question:

could there be an intelligent nature to the energy that has always existed from which hot big bangs occur and create universes?

The energy from which the universe arose would only need to have certain properties (like complex fields of magnetization, etc.) in order to produce what appears to us to be "intelligent behavior".

But if that's the case, then the property of the energy that we are calling "intelligent" would not need to be sentient in any way, nor would it need to be self-aware, or have chosen ahead of time how it would like for things to unfold. Instead, things would simply unfold they way they have to unfold due to the forces involved (in this case the magnetization of the individual particles.)

So we need to be careful what we label as being "intelligent", and also be aware that depending on what we mean by "intelligent behavior" does not necessarily require "intelligent sentience" or a conscious awareness of what the energy would "like" to have happen.

In short, the energy wouldn't need to be anymore "intelligent" than a magnet. In other words, it just is what it is without any self-awareness, intent or purpose.

We, as humans, then see what we call "intelligent behavior" in the universe, because we see anything that happens beyond mere randomness as seeming to be "intelligently designed" But there really doesn't need to be any "designer" behind it at all. It just does what it does because of the nature of what it is, in the same way that magnets line up in well-ordered ways. It's not because the magnets are "intelligent", it just because they are behaving in a way that is natural for the properties they happen to possess.

We see this as "intelligence" simply because it's not "happenstance".

And we could define "intelligence" in this way if we want to. But if we do this then intelligence does not require conscious sentience. All intelligence means in this case is that something is happening that is more complex than mere random happenstance.

No sentient consciousness required.

[For_The_Kingdom]

could there be an intelligent nature to the energy that has always existed from which hot big bangs occur and create universes?

I think we need to be very careful here in what we mean by "intelligence".

What we might be tempted to call "intelligence" might actually be nothing more than a consistent pattern of behavior.

In other words intelligence does not automatically equate to sentience, or a consciousness that is self-aware.

In other words, "We need to be careful here what we mean by "intelligence", because after all, "Intelligence" before the big bang would require a mind, and a mind will require a god, and a god will require my naturalistic worldview to be completely shattered by the existence of a Creator.

And we certainly can't have that".

That is what I got out of it.

[Divine Insight]

could there be an intelligent nature to the energy that has always existed from which hot big bangs occur and create universes?

I think we need to be very careful here in what we mean by "intelligence".

What we might be tempted to call "intelligence" might actually be nothing more than a consistent pattern of behavior.

In other words intelligence does not automatically equate to sentience, or a consciousness that is self-aware.

In other words, "We need to be careful here what we mean by "intelligence", because after all, "Intelligence" before the big bang would require a mind, and a mind will require a god, and a god will require my naturalistic worldview to be completely shattered by the existence of a Creator.

And we certainly can't have that".

That is what I got out of it.

You got it correct. Except for the part where you say, "And we certainly can't have that".

Please note that I did not demand that any actual conclusions must be made.

If you define "intelligence" as sentient consciousness that makes purposeful choices that have been well-thought out in advance, then of course, if you claim the energy that the universe appears to be "intelligent" would require that it must also then be sentient consciousness with purposeful intent. (i.e. require a mind)

However, if what we are referring to as "intelligence" is simply anything that happens in ways that are not totally random and happenstance, then an "intelligent energy" does not require that the energy be sentient or conscious of what is going on. (not mind required)

So yes, you absolutely have what I said correct. But you clearly didn't understand the actual meaning of it.

Note that my post did not demand (or even suggest) that any specific conclusions must be drawn. I simply illustrated that how we decide to think about these concepts will determine what conclusions we make.

If you demand that "intelligence" (well-organized non-random systems) and "sentient consciousness" are interchangeable synonyms that mean precisely the same thing, then anytime you see any organization at all you will necessarily conclude that there must be a sentient consciousness behind it because that's how you "defined" your terms.

This is why I say that we need to be careful when we consider these concepts and not confuse the actual concepts with how we might choose to define the semantics of various words.

You can easily prove anything you want by demanding that semantics is all that matters and also demanding very specific semantics be assigned to specific words.

But there is an extreme problem with that approach. If that's the basis of your argument then you would need to point to the dictionary by which you obtain your precise semantics. You would also then need to claim that all philosophy is finished and has been printed in the form of this dictionary. Any philosophical question could then be answered by just pointing to your dictionary. No further explanation would be required.

Clearly, that's not going to work very well.

So we need to be very careful when we try to use semantics to settle any philosophical questions.

If "intelligence" is nothing more than non-random happenstance, then there is no need for there to be any sentient mind in order to have "intelligent behavior".

But of course, if you are going to define "intelligence" to require a sentient thinking mind that does things with intent and purpose. They (by your demand of semantics) you have demanded that Intelligence = Sentience.

But that's just an argument of semantics there.

[Divine Insight]

And we certainly can't have that".[/b]

That is what I got out of it.

Just to clarify with brevity:

It's not that we can't have that. It's simply that the conclusion that there needs to be a "mind" behind organized behavior is non-sequitur.

So to draw the conclusion that this would be necessarily would be incorrect thinking.

[wiploc]

I'm confused about this point:

... a mind will require a god ...

Are you saying that you are a god or that you are not intelligent?

[For_The_Kingdom]

In other words, "We need to be careful here what we mean by "intelligence", because after all, "Intelligence" before the big bang would require a mind, and a mind will require a god, and a god will require my naturalistic worldview to be completely shattered by the existence of a Creator.

And we certainly can't have that".

That is what I got out of it.

You got it correct. Except for the part where you say, "And we certainly can't have that".

Please note that I did not demand that any actual conclusions must be made.

If you define "intelligence" as sentient consciousness that makes purposeful choices that have been well-thought out in advance, then of course, if you claim the energy that the universe appears to be "intelligent" would require that it must also then be sentient consciousness with purposeful intent. (i.e. require a mind)

However, if what we are referring to as "intelligence" is simply anything that happens in ways that are not totally random and happenstance, then an "intelligent energy" does not require that the energy be sentient or conscious of what is going on. (not mind required)

So yes, you absolutely have what I said correct. But you clearly didn't understand the actual meaning of it.

Um, that latter definition of intelligence defies observation, experiment, and prediction.

It isn't science, is what I am trying to say.

Now, I certainly understand that as new concepts/discoveries are revealed to us (by various means), that certain definitions have to be altered/modified..but it seems to me that in this case, you are reaching...really, really, reaching.

Note that my post did not demand (or even suggest) that any specific conclusions must be drawn. I simply illustrated that how we decide to think about these concepts will determine what conclusions we make.

Well, we already know what you are all about, so it is easy to assess the hidden meaning behind what you say.

If you demand that "intelligence" (well-organized non-random systems) and "sentient consciousness" are interchangeable synonyms that mean precisely the same thing, then anytime you see any organization at all you will necessarily conclude that there must be a sentient consciousness behind it because that's how you "defined" your terms.

I see your point, but we are not talking about any old "organization" and structure...we are talking extremely ASTRONOMICAL low entropy..as it relates to 90% of everything in nature.

You don't get that kind of entropy from chaos and randomness.

This is why I say that we need to be careful when we consider these concepts and not confuse the actual concepts with how we might choose to define the semantics of various words.

And that is why I say you are reaching, because intelligence without a mind is not intelligence.

You can easily prove anything you want by demanding that semantics is all that matters and also demanding very specific semantics be assigned to specific words.

Well, if you feel that way, then simply as the OP what does he mean by "intelligence", and then you will have to deal with the word as it is meant in the context of what was said.

But there is an extreme problem with that approach. If that's the basis of your argument then you would need to point to the dictionary by which you obtain your precise semantics. You would also then need to claim that all philosophy is finished and has been printed in the form of this dictionary. Any philosophical question could then be answered by just pointing to your dictionary. No further explanation would be required.

Clearly, that's not going to work very well.

So we need to be very careful when we try to use semantics to settle any philosophical questions.

If "intelligence" is nothing more than non-random happenstance, then there is no need for there to be any sentient mind in order to have "intelligent behavior".

But of course, if you are going to define "intelligence" to require a sentient thinking mind that does things with intent and purpose. They (by your demand of semantics) you have demanded that Intelligence = Sentience.

But that's just an argument of semantics there.

Reachinggg.

[SeaPriestess]

I probably should have been a little more specific and laid some background...

A popular argument against a "Prime Mover" is that If God created the big bang then who created God? Also, the issue of time. The skeptics say that thinking of God outside of time is just fantasy. However, according to this article and the Multiverse theory, the energy that has always existed lies outside of time. Time only began with the big bang. The energy leading up to it has no time. I just find that quite interesting. It seems perfectly plausible that the prime mover could indeed be the energy that lies outside of time or any force that lies or co-exists with the energy that obviously cannot be detected using our technology. But the point is, it used to be silly to think anything existed outside of time and space, until now.

[Divine Insight]

And that is why I say you are reaching, because intelligence without a mind is not intelligence.

But that was my whole point.

Obviously if you are going to demand this semantics for the term "intelligence" then you've already sealed the conclusions that you must draw.

This is why I said that we need to be careful that we don't create a logical fallacy based solely on semantics.

[SeaPriestess]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

Yes, please see my post before your last one. I did not address it to any one in particular but I sort of removed the word "intelligence" from the question since it wasn't the best word to use here without more information on my question.