Is the Universe alive and intelligent?
- Thread starter Domen
- Start date
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Well, if you look a quantum mechanics, the universe behaves like a computer simulation. It is non-local, so it is integraed and cotextual, like a computer program, it is not determined until somebody measures it, like a rendering engine which wont final render anything you cant see, it is made of pixels, everything being quantized in minimal portions including space and time...
As it was discussed previously in the thread about atlantis, realist aristotelic conception of the universe is not alone anymore, as there may be a superior reality beyond physical unverse, like a source code, the universe being only the byproduct of it, like the graphical environment of Windows or the final renderisation of a game. This is nothing but very old platonism refurbished. While most scientist dont even care for descending into such deepness and limit themselves to the Conpenhagenian view of "shut-up and calculate!" others take it very seriously though.
As it was discussed previously in the thread about atlantis, realist aristotelic conception of the universe is not alone anymore, as there may be a superior reality beyond physical unverse, like a source code, the universe being only the byproduct of it, like the graphical environment of Windows or the final renderisation of a game. This is nothing but very old platonism refurbished. While most scientist dont even care for descending into such deepness and limit themselves to the Conpenhagenian view of "shut-up and calculate!" others take it very seriously though.
A main question is also from whose point of view one cares to examine the 'Universe', for it is very very highly likely that from our own (Human) point of view we will never identify the Universe as what it may be from a hypothetical 'own' (ie cosmic) focal point of perception. Moreover it is likely such a cosmic perception does not even exist. I mean for you a pen is a mostly cylindrical object filled with ink. What is it from the pen's point of view?
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Obviously we will have to get along with our human POV whatever that means. Even if we humans someway become aware of the cosmical point of view you are speaking about, (may it be the point of view of "God"? ) it would be indeed a human point of view of the cosmical point of view, so it would be the same.
^Yes, it will still be our own point of view, factoring the notion of a different point of view. But why assume the universe is crucially something which 'is' from a human point of view?
Surely i can accept it is significant for us to examine it from our abilities, but not that any conclusion will have to mean much as to what itself 'is' anyway
In a way it is *maybe* as if a part of our neurons tried to examine what a human is.
Surely i can accept it is significant for us to examine it from our abilities, but not that any conclusion will have to mean much as to what itself 'is' anyway
In a way it is *maybe* as if a part of our neurons tried to examine what a human is.
1. Our mind is just a giant collection of algorithms. Where is the universe's algorithm? How was it shaped?
2. Dust Theory is a more relevant explanation, in which your mind goes through a selective process to find itself in an explicable universe. The universe must still be explained empirically, but the more important questions are about yourself and the fundamental nature of reality (which shouldn't be conflated with our particular bubble of spacetime).
2. Dust Theory is a more relevant explanation, in which your mind goes through a selective process to find itself in an explicable universe. The universe must still be explained empirically, but the more important questions are about yourself and the fundamental nature of reality (which shouldn't be conflated with our particular bubble of spacetime).
Thorgalaeg
Deity
@Kyriakos That is some deep s**t indeed, but it is also to care about something we will never know by definition. So in that sense i would be close to Copenhagenists (or whatever it is said) and dont care too much about something which is beyond us necessarily.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
So maybe what we call "God" is simply the Universe ???
Don't know. Maybe it is some part of the human abyss of a mental world (unconscious). Maybe it is something external too (not sure). The whole universe? That is also an option, i mean in most theologies the god is either one with the universe, or is something over it. Personally i doubt it matters cause we won't get there in one piece
Some even proposed a 'relative position' of a god, eg in a short story by Borges the god is different depending on who you are, so A can be -without being aware of it- a god to B, and B a god to someone else, even to A, and so on. ('the road to Al-Mutashim').
Some even proposed a 'relative position' of a god, eg in a short story by Borges the god is different depending on who you are, so A can be -without being aware of it- a god to B, and B a god to someone else, even to A, and so on. ('the road to Al-Mutashim').
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
I'd say 'God' makes the rules for the universe to exist, and by extension is the universe, though also is more than that.
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
What do you mean? Well, we are physical body + energy and we are part of the Universe.
If you remove physical body energy remains, which is part of the intelligent and living Universe.
So after dying we become one with the Universe, we become one with "God".
Spoiler :
===============================================
Link to video.
If there are many universes then it is possible that one universe is "above" another one, e.g. is a "parent universe" to its "child universe".
What do you mean? Well, we are physical body + energy and we are part of the Universe.
If you remove physical body energy remains, which is part of the intelligent and living Universe.
So after dying we become one with the Universe, we become one with "God".
Now explain also Hell and you have religion.
I am not sure if without 'consciousness' there is anything which can be termed by us as 'intelligent', though... The mind itself and consciousness seem to seperate phenomena due to inherent mental states and balances (one of the best quotes by Anaxagoras is exactly that 'at first all where One, but the Mind seperated them', which along with his other quotes gives it the meaning of consciousness creating phenomena in a consciousness-specific manner, and not bound by the actual 'reality' of the external stuff it 'notices').
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
I think it's the only logical explanation for our own consciousness: that somehow matter itself is alive and intelligent.
And therefore the Universe is also alive and intelligent.
If the Universe is made of unthinking matter it's a bit of a puzzler how consciousness has arisen in us, who are also composed of unthinking matter. If we are. Which it might make more sense to suppose we aren't.
And therefore the Universe is also alive and intelligent.
If the Universe is made of unthinking matter it's a bit of a puzzler how consciousness has arisen in us, who are also composed of unthinking matter. If we are. Which it might make more sense to suppose we aren't.
A poetic way to think of it would be that the unthinking matter had an innate urge to create something which would examine it, ie thinking matter, like us. I doubt it is so, but indeed i agree with you that the mere existence of consciousness is a hugely impressive parameter of our universe, even if we end up being the most intelligent species in it.
Gucumatz
JS, secretly Rod Serling
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,181
Quite possibly. Chaos and entropy all derive from somewhere
Domen
Misico dux Vandalorum
The second video I posted claims that universes metabolise through blackholes, creating new universes, etc.
If we accept this hypothesis then it is quite possible that the Big Bang was actually the Big Fart (at best!).
If we accept this hypothesis then it is quite possible that the Big Bang was actually the Big Fart (at best!).
^The so-called 'big-bang theory' (as said it has the stupidest name of all time for a known theory) is unimaginative and its premise is self-defeating. When you cannot get to the edge of a limit, you try to develop new ways of cancelling the limit or expanding the notion of the limit so as to further science. You don't come up with a theory with the claim that we cannot know anything beyond a certain point cause axiomatically none of the notions we use (eg time, space, expansion etc) exist before that point. That is a horrible axiom.
A bit like some people trying to open a door for 10 years, not making it, and thus now publishing 100 books with the claim that the door axiomatically cannot open anyway.
A bit like some people trying to open a door for 10 years, not making it, and thus now publishing 100 books with the claim that the door axiomatically cannot open anyway.
Similar threads
- Poll
