The Mind of the Universe

[3017Metaphysician]

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.

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?

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).

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.

At minimum, this behavior involves information and instruction. Meaning, one set of laws are instantiated in its matter which causes or governs its behavior.

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.

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).

2. Not sure what you mean by 'contexts'

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.

Okay. Sounds a bit like Idealism. No exceptions taken (i.e., subject-object).

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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.

[LuckyR]

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?

Not only is the answer to #1 unknown, it is unknowable (to us humans).

The answer to #2 is: it's definitely possible, even probable. Though even if true, would be completely transparent to us.

As to #3, to a third party able to view us as well as the universe and beyond, it would imply that we are even less important than our relatively insignificant relative size and influence would have us appear. To us (from our perspective): it implies nothing.

Not only is the answer to #1 unknown, it is unknowable (to us humans).

Hello LuckyR, thanks for your points of view. With sincere respect, there are topics on this forum that also have unknowable answers, or should I say too many answers/angles with no resolutions in sight. I modestly suggest that the strategy of comparing human Idea processing with a greater design is not radically implausible and has value along with other concepts on this board.

As to proof, you are correct in that I have not proven that the entire Universe can be perceived as a mind composed of contexts, but it is evident that human minds, which process forms of energy into definitional contexts, exist as part of the Universe, so contexts (the possibility of which you note below) are not unknown in the Universe. For example, the constituent relationships within an atom can be construed as a context by human minds, and that context necessarily exists in the Universe. Your answer suggests (I think) that contexts in the Universe are disconnected, my answer suggests a formal design. Two different points of view.

In any event I am not sure that provability is the only issue. Infinities cannot be proven, and yet the infinitesimal differences of calculus and Cantor’s work with infinities are accepted tools of mathematics. I would say it is generally agreed that there is an infinity of Ideas, with perhaps no agreement on whether all Ideas are connected or not, yet we have no structure, apart from mathematics, to visualize the structure of that infinity of Ideas. So seeing human Ideas as contexts in a larger architecture of a Universe of contexts offers a framework for inquiry.

Underlying all this is the practical utility of this framework. Actively considered contexts are material brainwaves, and as such can be viewed just like other material entities. Therein lies my contention that Idea relationships can be viewed as geometric architectures under the umbrella of Physics, revealing the relationships among contending Ideas at different levels of relevance in a context.

The answer to #2 is: it's definitely possible, even probable. Though even if true, would be completely transparent to us.

I would say that transparency is the point – the interactivity is seamless. Which plays into my response below.

As to #3, to a third party able to view us as well as the universe and beyond, it would imply that we are even less important than our relatively insignificant relative size and influence would have us appear. To us (from our perspective): it implies nothing.

The implication depends on your interpretation of a few things. (1) Transparency as described above; (2) the materiality of contexts; (3) the curiosity that different religions formed at different times in different parts of the world stress the importance of the integrity of the soul, irrespective of the methods taught to achieve that goal; and (4) reports by survivors of the significant events/contexts of their lives flashing before their eyes when they believed they were dying. Combine, discredit, or dismiss those points in any way you like. I’m not advocating, I’m just accounting for the highly personal nature of contextual interpretations of these points.

A few things. For clarity, my use of the word "transparent" is used as synonymous with "invisible".

I agree completely that as an unknowable these issues are subjectively important (or not) as well as open to essentially any interpretation.