I think, as it relates to the OP, by positing a statement The Mind of the Universe, we can easily point to the logical necessities corresponding to the subject-object requirement. They are dependent on each other to understand reality/existence. As such, we have biological instructions (genetic codes, chemicals, etc.) and physical instructions (molecules, protons, etc.) and the two should somehow be compatible (think relativity and QM= ToE if you prefer). However, we know that right now, they are not compatible, hence once again think in terms of opposites.Meta Island wrote: ↑November 5th, 2022, 11:51 am 3017, thanks for the down-to-earth questions I can extract from your post. I am always willing to engage when you draw straight lines from the topic to your questions.
Meta Island" wrote: And so my questions:
(1) Does the Universe have a mind of its own, with its own corresponding contextual intelligence?
(2) If so, are we just contexts within the mind of the Universe?
(3) If so, what does that imply, if anything?If by independent you mean the Universe existed independently prior to human perception, I would of course agree with you. If you mean independent after the existence of human perception, I would say that since our perception exists in the Universe the definition of a Universe existing independently of us needs an interactive tweaking.”3017Metaphysician” wrote: Sure, I'll give it go! My answers to the three questions would be:
1. Yes it does. Not only is its existence independent of ours (certainly true from a physics/science perspective as a tree that falls when no one hears it, is still supposed to exist).
This is where you confuse me. You frequently contend that instructions/information are not material – that is, they are not a form of matter as in your “hunk of dirt” example. Yet in this passage you state instructions are instantiated in matter, as if instructions exist immaterially in matter.”3017Metaphysician” wrote: At minimum, this behavior involves information and instruction. Meaning, one set of laws are instantiated in its matter which causes or governs its behavior.
Sure. Great distinction. Yes they do. Specifically, the information/instruction instantiated in matter are the mathematical laws suggesting an ordered universe. As such, mathematics itself is a metaphysical qualitative property of a thing. The object or thing itself is quantitative, but the information/instruction is qualitative (hence the term Qualia, intentionality, etc...). Always think in opposites. Remember, generally speaking, any situation in which the existence or identity of a thing (quality v. quantity) depends on the co-existence of at least two conditions which are opposite to each other, yet dependent on each other, are required for its existence. One obvious example is the subject-object dynamic. (Davies alludes to this in the opening statement about how information causes people to interact with each other... .)
Or think of it this way, when an engineer (subject) designs a structural beam (object), what can cause it to come into being or existence is a mathematical formula. The formula(s) is used to create (mass produce) the object, the skyscraper, the machine, and so on. So, when one looks at an object, behind it, unseen, is an abstract metaphysical formula of sorts. Or even another way to look at this would be the tenets of philosophical Structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure. And even Kant, in his dialectics, was correct in assuming two opposing elements are always present in making sense out of things (antinomy).
Let’s narrow things down and just speak in terms of perception. Idea definitions are the substance of perception; active perception is the translation of inputs into brainwaves, and brainwaves are matter in the form of electrical impulses. If you are saying the “information” organizing the brainwaves is an electrical field, then that organization is physical, not immaterial. Keeping the focus on perception, can you offer a way to organize Ideas other than with a material electrical field?
Well, there are several things to unpack. One is quantum phenomena, non-locality where things seemingly behave without any physical connection or causal chain of communication/information/instruction (spooky action at a distance). Then there are those things relating to thinking things or objects that have causal powers or properties. For instance, the easy one to parse is the Will that causes all human behavior. Our Will has causal powers over the effects of neural activity. Our self-organized sense of self-awareness, in our stream of consciousness (our apperception of things), causes ideas, thoughts and feelings to come into existence. Both of these things, this conscious mind-dependent phenomena, happens to us (self-organization) and also by us (our Will).
Nothing special. Every Idea requires other Ideas for its unique definition – that’s how Ideas like “abstract” and “dimensionless geometric points” can even be talked about. That association of Ideas is a context.”3017Metaphysician” wrote: 2. Not sure what you mean by 'contexts'
Okay. Sounds a bit like Idealism. No exceptions taken (i.e., subject-object).
See my answer to #1.”3017Metaphysician” wrote: If you mean primacy, then the question certainly goes back to how the information narrative (self-organized conscious biological creatures) emerges from physical matter.
See my answer to #1. I am a casual, and I emphasize casual, observer of quantum physics because my interest is at the software level of Idea processing which is a light-year or two away from QM. From what I gather “it from bit” relies on the role of the observer, but it does not offer an examination of human observation itself – the domain of human perception. In that regard it does not consider how information garnered by human observation is affected by the human processing of that observation by material electrical impulses/fields. That would make the information dependent on a physical substrate, which would make it a dimension of the physical substrate, which would imply a material connection between information and physicality. Again, I am a casual observer of QM, and I am willing to listen to counterarguments, but I am unlikely to offer a complicated defense on this take beyond my answer to #1.”3017Metaphysician” wrote: 3. It implies many things including mystery. But at least we've narrowed it down to information itself as a requirement for understanding the behavior of complex biological and physical systems, biological laws and physical laws respectively.
Oh, after watching the video again, at the very end, note that Davies corresponds Quantum observation as an inferential treatment towards information taking primacy. As such, you have Wheeler's PAP, and the infamous saying "it from bit" v. 'bit from it', so on and so forth....
I would add that a convincing argument of a connector – some translator between immaterial information and the material processing of that information - that negates my answer to #1 would have interesting implications, so my door to that is always open. Right now, I just don’t see how the mechanics would work.
So, it seems have information and instruction calling the shots. A something that causes genetically coded information/instruction to produce self-organization or self-direction of things, in-themselves. If you left out Mind in your thesis, I'm guessing we'd have a slightly different conversation. Remember, the mind itself is an information processing thing. And it causes things like thoughts and feelings to come into existence and do stuff (the Will). Hence the distinctions between quality and quantities of existing things, or the nature of existing things.