When did “consciousness” enter the Universe?

[Guy Threepwood]

It is what it is. We have no basis on which to judge probabilities.

The entire rationale behind multiverses is that you need an infinite probability machine to cover the improbabilities- I agree with Krauss here-

'If your theory requires an invisible infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear that you even have a theory'

You clearly want to make a designer god a logical option, but there is no more reason to suppose a designer god than to suppose magic, or cosmic pixies. The cosmological models are at least based on well-tested fundamental physics.

Not at all, again I was raised a very strict atheist, but came to question those beliefs later in life- I'm just interested in the truth regardless of the implications- I do confess I no longer have anything against there being a designer God, and according to some that's apparently a 'bias'! i.e. I should dismiss the idea without further consideration as 'religious pseudoscience' as many did the primeval atom.

"there is no more reason to suppose a designer god than to suppose magic"

Which explanation would you say is more 'magical'

A rabbit spontaneously materializing in a hat
Or someone intentionally putting it there in anticipation of the effect?

When archeologists and forensic scientists identify intelligent agency- are they invoking 'magic'?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Sorry to disrupt this agreement, but 'symbolic representational information' has the same dependencies as any other type of information. Its dependent on an observer who is capable of conceiving information, via whatever means.
This is a case where its so-called 'physical source', is completely irrelevant.
Conception (or conceiving information) is still the substrate/dependency there.

Agreed, and of course we can have false negatives- interstellar radio waves might be jam packed with alien transmissions we cannot decode.. but false positives become extremely unlikely as the quality and quantity of the recognized information increases.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

These are not ideological restrictions, simply the consequence of having no choice but to rely on observables, which are designated 'natural'. As soon as you can provide reliable observable evidence of whatever you call 'supernatural', it will be accepted as part of reality, i.e. the natural, physical world.

The question is does it have any observable effect or influence on the world?
If it doesn't, it may as well be fiction.

And how are you going to account for the supernatural? an infinite regression of ever more super-supernaturalness, or special pleading?

The universe exists. That's all we can currently say.

The point being; what do we label 'supernatural' and hence 'forbidden to consider' under methodological naturalism?

Andrei Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, considers it 'feasible' in his words, that we can fully reverse engineer our universe to the point of being able to engineer a new one. And hence it is entirely possible that this might be the explanation for our own universe. His argument not mine.

^So is Linde invoking 'magic' here? the 'supernatural?' it's a semantic debate obviously, but the subjective answer to that question determines whether it may be permitted as a possibility within certain ideologies.

I say why not discard the arbitrary rules and just follow the evidence wherever it leads? regardless of how 'profound', 'unpleasant' or 'embarrassing' the implications might be to some.

Whatever the solution, it probably involves something a little more interesting that Newtonian physics!

 

[Bradskii]

When archeologists and forensic scientists identify intelligent agency- are they invoking 'magic'?

I assume that you mean 'identify apparent intelligent agency'. If not, then I'm sure you could link to a recognised scientist who claims to have discovered actual evidence of an intelligent agency. And I hope he or she won't be involved with the ID movement.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The entire rationale behind multiverses is that you need an infinite probability machine to cover the improbabilities- I agree with Krauss here-

'If your theory requires an invisible infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear that you even have a theory'

The rationale behind multiverses is that they're predictions of well-established theories. It may be convenient that they are a potential answer to the fine-tuning problem, but that is not their rationale. AIUI most cosmologists would rather find some physical reasons why the universe is the way it is.

But Krauss's comment applies equally to the idea of supernatural creator/designer entities, except that there's no rationale for them. The evidence suggests that they're products of human imagination.

Which explanation would you say is more 'magical'

A rabbit spontaneously materializing in a hat
Or someone intentionally putting it there in anticipation of the effect?

Lol! since when did anyone say that someone putting a rabbit in a hat is supernatural? We know there are people, rabbits, and hats and we know illusionists do such things.

If your reference to spontaneous materialization refers to the universe, we have no evidence for that either; for all we know the universe has always been around.

When archeologists and forensic scientists identify intelligent agency- are they invoking 'magic'?

Not at all, they're identifying the past activities of humans from the kinds of artefacts that humans leave. Nothing magical or supernatural. They're certainly not suggesting that all-powerful immaterial supernatural entities had anything to do with it - because there's no evidence to suggest such things can or do exist.

Your analogies are, as Wolfgang Pauli put it, "Not even wrong".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The point being; what do we label 'supernatural' and hence 'forbidden to consider' under methodological naturalism?

Nothing is 'forbidden to consider'. If it has observable influence it can be considered.

Andrei Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, considers it 'feasible' in his words, that we can fully reverse engineer our universe to the point of being able to engineer a new one. And hence it is entirely possible that this might be the explanation for our own universe. His argument not mine.

^So is Linde invoking 'magic' here? the 'supernatural?' it's a semantic debate obviously, but the subjective answer to that question determines whether it may be permitted as a possibility within certain ideologies.

No problem with that - he can speculate whatever he likes. If he finds observables consistent with his speculation, he can formulate a testable hypothesis and see where that leads.

I say why not discard the arbitrary rules and just follow the evidence wherever it leads? regardless of how 'profound', 'unpleasant' or 'embarrassing' the implications might be to some.

There are no 'arbitrary rules'. If it can be observed it can be investigated; if not, it can't. It's that simple.

Whatever the solution, it probably involves something a little more interesting that Newtonian physics!

Obviously! We've already abandoned Newtonian physics except as a convenient approximation within certain limits.

 

[Bradskii]

Andrei Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, considers it 'feasible' in his words, that we can fully reverse engineer our universe to the point of being able to engineer a new one. And hence it is entirely possible that this might be the explanation for our own universe. His argument not mine.

How do you manage to denigrate the possibility of the multiverse in one post and then immediately propose that we should listen to an expert (Linde) who is one of the main proponents of it? From wiki:

'Perhaps the most far-reaching prediction made by Linde was related to what is now called the theory of inflationary multiverse...'

And when he said 'explanation for our own universe' he meant how it happened. And not why. Here are his actual words:

'When I invented chaotic inflation theory, I found that the only thing you needed to get a universe like ours started is a hundred-thousandth of a gram of matter,” Linde told me in his Russian-accented English when I reached him by phone at Stanford. “That’s enough to create a small chunk of vacuum that blows up into the billions and billions of galaxies we see around us. It looks like cheating, but that’s how the inflation theory works—all the matter in the universe gets created from the negative energy of the gravitational field. So, what’s to stop us from creating a universe in a lab? We would be like gods!” The creation of the universe.

It would help that if you want to suggest that someone said something that supports whatever claim you are making (and I haven't any idea of what exactly that is at the moment), that you quote that person directly in context so that we can check the validity of your claim.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I assume that you mean 'identify apparent intelligent agency'. If not, then I'm sure you could link to a recognised scientist who claims to have discovered actual evidence of an intelligent agency. And I hope he or she won't be involved with the ID movement.

Scientists in archeology and forensics routinely use proven scientific methods to distinguish between naturalistic and intelligent causes- no magic involved.

Belief in Darwinism 'with no God guiding' is at about 20% in the US according to Gallup. And less in many other parts of the world.

So the rest of us by definition accept some form of intelligent design in biology, whether or not we are part of the official scientific 'ID' movement.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The rationale behind multiverses is that they're predictions of well-established theories. It may be convenient that they are a potential answer to the fine-tuning problem, but that is not their rationale. AIUI most cosmologists would rather find some physical reasons why the universe is the way it is.

But Krauss's comment applies equally to the idea of supernatural creator/designer entities, except that there's no rationale for them. The evidence suggests that they're products of human imagination.

Lol! since when did anyone say that someone putting a rabbit in a hat is supernatural? We know there are people, rabbits, and hats and we know illusionists do such things.

If your reference to spontaneous materialization refers to the universe, we have no evidence for that either; for all we know the universe has always been around.

Not at all, they're identifying the past activities of humans from the kinds of artefacts that humans leave. Nothing magical or supernatural. They're certainly not suggesting that all-powerful immaterial supernatural entities had anything to do with it - because there's no evidence to suggest such things can or do exist.
.

So to be clear, you are saying that creative intelligence is not a supernatural phenomena?
You believe it can be entirely accountable for by physical/material processes?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How do you manage to denigrate the possibility of the multiverse in one post and then immediately propose that we should listen to an expert (Linde) who is one of the main proponents of it? From wiki:

'Perhaps the most far-reaching prediction made by Linde was related to what is now called the theory of inflationary multiverse...'

And when he said 'explanation for our own universe' he meant how it happened. And not why. Here are his actual words:

'When I invented chaotic inflation theory, I found that the only thing you needed to get a universe like ours started is a hundred-thousandth of a gram of matter,” Linde told me in his Russian-accented English when I reached him by phone at Stanford. “That’s enough to create a small chunk of vacuum that blows up into the billions and billions of galaxies we see around us. It looks like cheating, but that’s how the inflation theory works—all the matter in the universe gets created from the negative energy of the gravitational field. So, what’s to stop us from creating a universe in a lab? We would be like gods!” The creation of the universe.

It would help that if you want to suggest that someone said something that supports whatever claim you are making (and I haven't any idea of what exactly that is at the moment), that you quote that person directly in context so that we can check the validity of your claim.

So, what’s to stop us from creating a universe in a lab? We would be like gods!” The creation of the universe.

^ You could probably dig up a lot of quotes from him saying roughly the same thing, if you were previously unaware of him mentioning this, you managed to validate it for yourself- that's great.

So the question remains, in suggesting this possibility of an intelligently designed universe and even 'God-like' powers- is Linde invoking the 'supernatural' or 'magic'? or merely the proven phenomena of creative intelligence?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nothing is 'forbidden to consider'. If it has observable influence it can be considered.

Okay, and creative intelligence has an observable influence

so why is it forbidden again?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So to be clear, you are saying that creative intelligence is not a supernatural phenomena?
You believe it can be entirely accountable for by physical/material processes?

Yes, humans (and quite a few other animals) have what I would call creative intelligence, and I see no need to invoke the supernatural for it. If you can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that there must be some supernatural involvement, I'll be happy to change my view.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Okay, and creative intelligence has an observable influence

so why is it forbidden again?

What are you talking about? who has forbidden creative intelligence?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So, what’s to stop us from creating a universe in a lab? We would be like gods!” The creation of the universe.

It may be theoretically possible, but it may not be practically possible; but in any case, we don't currently have the technical ability and knowledge.

So the question remains, in suggesting this possibility of an intelligently designed universe and even 'God-like' powers- is Linde invoking the 'supernatural' or 'magic'? or merely the proven phenomena of creative intelligence?

He suggested that potentially humans could do it, so he's clearly not invoking the 'supernatural' or 'magic'. He's quoted as saying, "On the evidence, our universe was created not by a divine being, but by a physicist hacker."

 

[Astrid]

Okay, and creative intelligence has an observable influence

so why is it forbidden again?

Might be that you're thinking science is like religion,
which has quite the history of forbidding certain considerations.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, humans (and quite a few other animals) have what I would call creative intelligence, and I see no need to invoke the supernatural for it. If you can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that there must be some supernatural involvement, I'll be happy to change my view.

No, we are in complete agreement here- but what fun is that?!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What are you talking about? who has forbidden creative intelligence?

When it comes to the explanatory power concerning one particular large encompassing object - this phenomena suddenly becomes off-limits for some. (Not Andrei Linde)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Might be that you're thinking science is like religion,
which has quite the history of forbidding certain considerations.

Which side acknowledges belief/faith as such? ideally both, but not always.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It may be theoretically possible, but it may not be practically possible; but in any case, we don't currently have the technical ability and knowledge.


He suggested that potentially humans could do it, so he's clearly not invoking the 'supernatural' or 'magic'. He's quoted as saying, "On the evidence, our universe was created not by a divine being, but by a physicist hacker."

And that physicist hacker does not have to be human, Linde also states that it logically follows that the 'lab experiment' may be the explanation for our own universe also- the result of an experiment in a lab in an 'alien universe'

Again no appeal to the 'supernatural' required for this explanation- only proven existing phenomena
Which is more than can be said for the FSM (flying spaghetti multiverse)

 

[SelfSim]

Agreed, and of course we can have false negatives- interstellar radio waves might be jam packed with alien transmissions we cannot decode.. but false positives become extremely unlikely as the quality and quantity of the recognized information increases.

False negatives and false positives are still relative to the patterns the observer conceives. So are the constraints which defines the patterns. Any truth about such signal patterns is also relative.
You might be interested in the truth ... but the truth you seek is in your mind.