"Some 
distant
 life
 form
 could 
be
 observing
 dinosaurs 
on
 Earth
 through
 their
 telescope.
Since
 the
 universe 
contains 
so
 much
 information,
one 
might
 ask 
if
 one
 could
 ask
 the
 universe
 about
 itself.
The
 universe
 itself 
is 
not 
intelligent,
even
 with 
the
 very
 low
 bar 
I 
place
 on
 intelligence,
 because
 there 
is 
no 
broad
 goal
 for
 the
 universe.
"

No supernatural or human (Anthropic Principle) plan for the universe?

The perspective of others observing us some 80 million years ago is fetching. You could put together these pearls/these images into a "Jeff" view, perhaps aided by student perspectives on science -- which you touch upon.

Again thanks for your comments.We like to be Kings in our own minds.

Jim

    Jim,

    They could be viewing us "now" (whatever now means) from a distance of 80 million light years away. Because light needs time to travel, we see the stars how they were and they see us how we were.

    I am sure if there are "others" observing us, they would have a very different view of the universe. The "others" plan for our universe might be very different from ours. If the universe itself has an intelligence and a perspective, our goals and dreams might seem strange or even pointless. Our plan might seem like a wish that has not yet formed.

    Jeff

    6 days later

    Hello Geffry,

    I am pleased to read your essay with deep philosophical thoughts and conclusions. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, which gives each researcher good line of research, as well as deep understanding of Universe, as well as the nature and place of the phenomenon of information in the physical world:"The universe itself might not have a purpose, but science, one of the ways we try to understand our universe, needs a purpose. The purpose of science affects this seemingly dispassionate pursuit.»

    But it may be "self-aware Universe" (V.Nalimov) may have a purpose?

    Perfect conclusion: «Exploration of physical relationships by complex interconnected computer network without connection to the physical world is the same as a single person thinking by candlelight hundreds of years ago. The results would be somplex, but in substance the same - a proof of self-consistency and existence. Through brain research we can start to understand how thoughts are formed and bring the inner world out. In a similar vain, science to be science, must continue to look out and relate to the physical universe. The information age gives us new possibilities of intelligence, but it cannot bypass the scientific method».

    I put a rating of "nine". See also my essay, I think we're going to the same destination close roads.

    Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics": «The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence. "

    http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

    Do you agree with Alexander Zenkin?

    And I have for you a third question: How should the physics go to physical picture of the world was as rich in meaning as the picture of the world lyricists?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

    Maybe matter physicists should see the soul and memory? Otherwise we will all be robots? It's all my questions to you as a physicist and philosopher. There are very few physicists for some reason ...

    Best regards,

    Vladimir

      Dear Jeffrey -

      As someone wrote on my page - 'The Universe doesn't explain itself, it presents itself to us.' If it could speak it would say: 'I am therefore I am.'

      I think that the Mind does the same thing - only it says: 'I think therefore I am'. The Mind reflects the universe - and its mechanisms can all be traced back through a binary puzzle that has as its starting point an energy-field correlation with the binary structure of matter itself - the underlying proton-neutron structure.

      I was thinking of this as I read your description of evolution. I too consider evolution to indeed fundamental to how we perceive the universe, and obviously to how we interact with it biologically.

      I agree with your defense of the scientific method; I would add that evolution has led us to consider ultimate questions in a manner so detailed that we need to rigorously re-evaluate our fundamental assumptions if we wish to achieve answers. You'' be interested to see how I do this in my paper, and I hope that in the next little while you'll have some time to look it over ...

      I've rated your work, and wish you the best in the competition.

      John

        Vladimir,

        Thank you for your comments.

        In answer to your questions: The Universe does not need to be self-aware to have a purpose. Self-awareness must come from intelligence, but intelligence does always lead to self-awareness (I gave the example of evolution). The universe might have a purpose, it might also have an intelligence and it might be a self-aware intelligence. The only pathway towards intelligence that I know requires a goal, other pathways could exist that are absent a goal. A self-aware universe without a purpose could exist.

        The quote from Alexander Zenkin is about truth. The scientific method can not find "truth". The only pathway towards intelligence that I understand requires testing as seen in the scientific method and therefore has nothing to do with "truth". I hope Alexander Zenkin finds truth and I wish him the best, but I have no way of helping him on his quest.

        We are in no danger of becoming robots. Music, art and the soul are important, Physics does not need to prove their importance. Art and science run parallel with each other and both help the other out, but they are separate.

        Jeff

        John,

        Thank you for your comments.

        I find I have to re-read these essays a number of times before I get them, so I have been slow with my reviews.

        Hope you do well,

        Jeff

        Jeff,

        As I stated in my email to you, I found your brief essay truly original, enlightening, and to the point. A most noteworthy effort. What caught my eye was your attention to the value of empirical evidence to deal with experimental and theoretical bias via the scientific method.

        I am glad to see your rating has increased since then and I hope you find the time to reciprocate my support of your essay in kind.

        Best wishes,

        Manuel

        Jeff,

        Great little essay, and very much needed, though it shouldn't be! I recently found myself on a blog explaining the SciMeth and axiomatic theories to a Professor of maths and quantum physics, who genuinely didn't understand and taught just old doctrine. Very worrying!

        I entirely agree; "We confuse intelligence with self-awareness and... processing."

        But also even just skilled mathematical symbol manipulation. I identify and define an important 'Dirac line' discerning maths form nature, because as you rightly say;

        "Mathematical systems like kinematics imperfectly intersect with the physical universe, Quantum mechanics embraces noise."

        I entirely agree and have proposed that perhaps the 'shut up and calculate era should give way to to "stop and think".

        I appear guilty myself in using an ironic play on words, calling a 'bit' with massively extended capacity an 'Intelligent' or IQbit, but show that only the power of thinking can discover this capacity, partly by better defining 'observation' in terms of it's components. I hope the power I show this model has may be taken as proving your point. I do make some apparently radical suggestions, but none yet falsified!

        I do hope you'll manage to read (and mark and comment on) my essay. Don't let the dense abstract put you off, see the more flattering blog comments; i.e. "...Peter and others interested in his wonderful essay..", and; "Technically challenging and philosophically deep - very few papers meet both. This is one of them." etc.

        Very well done for yours in any event.

        Best wishes

        Peter

        Peter,

        Thank you for your comments. Your essay is next up on my reading list.

        Uncertainty being a foundation of Quantum Mechanics is both a strength and a weakness because it makes testing the theory difficult.

        All the best,

        Jeff

        Hello Jeffrey,

        I agree that the universe probably doesn't have a purpose. I was interested that you consider that it might have a purpose, but we might be unable to see it, yet are open to the possibility that we might.

        You've shown here a thorough examination of all possibilities.

        Science and scientific method was also thoroughly and thoughtfully. Sounds like your students receive a lot of wisdom from you.

        Please take a look at my essay if you get chance.

        Best wishes & well done on an excellent essay. I rate it highly - hope it helps,

        Antony

          Antony,

          Thank you for your comments.

          I often teach nights and weekends to working adults (I sometimes get students who are older than me). I think wisdom is the wrong word. I hope I can give my students a new perspective on the world around them.

          Hope you do well,

          Jeff

          Dear Jeffrey,

          You have given due importance to science and scientific method in your essay. You have rightly described first how a pattern is formed by mind and based on this how hypotheses are framed and then how theories are developed on these hypotheses. Sometimes adhoc hypotheses are framed to explain new scientific facts and theories are based on them. If they fail to explain other facts later discovered then such hypotheses and theories based on them will have to be replaced by some other better theories. This is, indeed, found in the history of science. You have also stated clearly why robots and computers cannot take over man as they are not intelligent systems like humans but are operated by him. The idea that the universe may not have purpose behind it makes it look like non- lively. But you are right when you say that there is purpose behind the evolution of Life, because Life has continued to exist even after its existence and evolution for billions of years under going enormous change in its complexity, intelligence and form. When you say that "In evolution we have another intelligent system to compare with human intelligence" reminds me of my hypotheses in biology that "Evolution of Life is analogous to the evolution of the knowledge of mind". It is based on this hypothesis I am going to build my theory of the existence and evolution of Life. Thus in this respect your idea is nearly similar to mine. Due to this similarity of thought I will rate this essay with maximum rating after seeing your response to my comments. I have answered your comments on my essay in my thread.

          Thanks for writing an elegantly argued article.

          Sreenath

            Sreenath,

            Thank you for your comments.

            I feel that computers could be intelligent (along with many other things and animals), but computers (or robots) do not share our needs. In a sense, needs and wants make us "rulers", not intelligence.

            Best of luck with you essay,

            Jeff

            Dear Jeffrey,

            As promised I have rated your essay.

            Best of luck,

            Sreenath

            Dear Jeffrey Michael Schmitz:

            I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

            Maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

            I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

            I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

            Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

            I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

            With my best whishes

            Héctor

            Dear Jeff

            My previous post was erased. I just want to let you know that I have already read your nice and short essay. Robots and computers have no desires and feelings, but how can we explain these in humans if we are just of matter and energy?

            I'd like to invite you to read my essay and leave some comments. There I discuss about Wheeler's dream and propose a potential way to get out of the present crisis.

            I'll be looking forward to hearing any comments you may have.

            Regards

            Israel

            Jeff,

            Whatever you call it - keep it up - they are benefiting I'm sure!

            I also hope you do well - thanks!

            Antony

            Dear Jeffrey Michael Schmitz:

            I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, I read your essay and I find it bright and clear and it seems to me seriously done and I rated for it.

            Maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

            I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

            I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

            Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

            I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

            With my best whishes

            Héctor

            Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

            If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

            I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

            There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements - which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

            Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

            This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

            Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

            This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

            However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

            Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

            Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

            The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

            Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

            This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

            Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

            You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

            With many thanks and best wishes,

            John

            jselye@gmail.com