Essay Abstract

Over the past few decades, considerable progress has been made in explaining how complex, intelligent behaviors emerge in dynamic systems. The overall architecture can now be discerned, although much work remains to be done on the particulars. At the same time, the question of why the universe works this way remains as elusive as ever. There is a direction to the process, and we do not understand the nature of that intentionality. We are left with contradictory hypotheses for why the universe is the way it is. Do you believe that what exists is fundamentally an expression of randomness within mathematical forms? Or do you believe in a cosmic intentionality that provides generative guidance for the emergence and evolution of our uniquely specified universe? I believe this question is, and always will be, from an empirical standpoint, undecidable. Yet our choice of answer is fundamental to how we think about the world and how we live in it. We had best choose wisely. I make an argument for cosmic intentionality.

Author Bio

George Gantz is a writer, philosopher and retired business executive with a life-long passion for mathematics, science, philosophy and theology. He has a Bachelor of Science degree with Honors Humanities from Stanford University, directs the Forum on Integrating Science and Spirituality at www.swedenborgcenterconcord.org and blogs on related topics. His essay The Tip of The Spear earned 4th place in the 2014 FQXi essay contest.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear George, I just read your sunny essay. I search for knowledge when I read this forum, yet you made me joyful. Thanks for that! I must ask the question, however, even if it may sound bitter. If I get you well, you believe that from rational grounds, the answer to your main question is undecidable. Yet, you opt for conscious intentionality, as an act of free will (assuming there is such thing, which you seem to assume). Would it be a good summary to say that your choice is based on the fact that it makes you happier? That you do not want to represent the universe as purpose-less, in your mind, because that would mean choices are only illusory free, and therefore opt for the intentional alternative? Please let me know if I got you right. I myself argue that there are no goals per se, but that we choose to see them. Not exactly because their existence makes us happier, but rather, because their detection allows us to make predictions, and thereby, to be more fit to pass on our genes.

By the way... congrats for the grandson! You did succeed in passing on your genes - in combination with others. Whether your positive view of the world is causally related to such a success is another question (or is it the same question?).

inés.

    Thank you inés. I'm glad my essay made you happy. Yes, I tend to be optimistic, but I believe the evidence for cosmic intentionality is very good, in fact compelling. But one has to be open to the idea. I quite agree that one can hold a rational and consistent belief in randomness, in which case one will also tend to reject or de-emphasize the evidence which I find so compelling.

    Your comment about our choosing to see goals, which makes us more fit to pass on our genes, is interesting. I agree with you. I also see, in that statement, one small piece of the intentionality of evolution. Our universe intends us to be successful in anticipating the future and rewards us by passing on our genes. Over time, this leads to increasing knowledge, wisdom and mastery for the whole of humanity.

    By the way, there is considerable evidence in recent psychological literature that those with a positive outlook tend to live more positive lives. This idea could lead us into a long discussion of Pascal's wager --- and whether evidence is mounting in favor of the choice he was arguing for.....

    Dear George,

    I enjoyed reading your poetic essay two years ago; it's a pleasure to read your new text, both rational and spiritual. Pointing to the metaphysical choice between the fundamental chaos and intentionality, you state that the case is undecidable from the empirical standpoint and suggest strong argument for the intentionality on the ethical ground. Lev and I more than agree with your ethical reasoning, but we do not completely agree about impossibility to decide on the scientific ground. If you remember our two-year old essay, "Genesis of a Pythagorean Universe", we showed there that the laws of nature are so specific, that only upper Mind can be their source. Briefly, we repeat this argumentation in our text suggested for this contest. However, we still agree that ethical argumentation is needed, since on the ground of the laws of nature one cannot tell why the Demiurge could not be sort of Descartes' evil demon. Your essay presents the ethical argument in a new and interesting way, and we are giving you a high score.

    Good luck!

    Alexey.

    Alexey / Lev -

    Nice to hear from you again. Ah, yes, the Demiurge strikes again. I enjoyed your essay last time and look forward to reading the new one.

    I'll be most interested in seeing how you can sail the empirical arguments through the treaturous shoals between the rocks of Godel and QP. and to hear how the Upper Mind conceives of intentionality.

    Cheers - George

    George,

    "I believe this question is, and always will be, from an empirical standpoint, undecidable. Yet our choice of answer is fundamental to how we think about the world and how we live in it. We had best choose wisely. I make an argument for cosmic intentionality."

    Your words perhaps indicate the inscrutability of this topic. My idea of a cosmic intentionality involves mindless laws furnishing restraint and direction for our daily flow of actions. Survival involves instinctive mechanisms for living and actually non-living things for physicists like Jeremy England. Goals arise in a decision context, according to Aristotle and we have a remarkably similar cycle of life, death and rebirth from molecular life to galaxies and the universe/s and metaphorical similarities between the human womb and the universe's womb.

    I'm not really sure what your cosmic intentionality means, other than my rambling.

    I would like to see your thoughts on my essay.

    Jim Hoover

      James -

      As you say - "... our daily flow of action"

      For every action there is intention. Without intention there is mere wandering, and the universe would go nowhere, or perhaps, according to the multiverse, everywhere.

      Thanks for reading my essay. I look forward to reading yours!

      -George

      Thank you Harry. I look forward to reading yours when I have a chance!

      Dear George. I very much enjoyed reading your essay. Engaging, inspiring and a pleasure to read. I think you are pointing correctly at the gaping hole in science - one that includes the universe's global trajectory towards increasing complexity and at the same time our heartfelt desire for a better existence.

      I think it is brave, too, to step out and say this in such an open way, as too often anything optimistic is seen as subjective bias, where pessimistic outlooks are seen as objective. (A correlation between pessimism and being a critic perhaps?)

      I am interested in your differentiation between intentionality and agency. Can you enlarge on this at all?

      Finally, I think you will find my essay "From Nothingness to Value Ethics" interesting. I am trying to turn the "gaping hole" issue I refer to into something more defined.

      best regards, Gavin

        Thank you Gavin. I look forward to reading your essay.

        As I said in the essay, intention is a behavior (motion and direction) and agency is an internal conscious capacity, something we only observe in the case of our self. I think the case for intentionality in the universe is clear - that behavior is present and observed at all levels of creation and evolution. Addressing the question of whether there is agency behind it requires a leap of faith, as it were. That's a different kind of conversation for a different day.

        Regards - George

        George Gantz,

        Your essay is interesting and has a sort of metaphysical feel to me, which, based on some of the other essays submitted, does not appear to be out of bounds for this competition. I noticed you tend to personify non-living systems, which, in my opinion, can make them appear to act with intent when, in actuality, they are at the mercy of their environments. This is something I touched on in my essay. For example, you say:

        "... flowing water seeks out a stable structure ..."

        Perhaps it does "seek out," but maybe it just settles into a stable structure that it had no choice in assuming. In another example, you say of emerging galaxies:

        "The system searches through available configurations ..."

        with a goal of minimizing local entropy. Again, I wonder if the galaxy had no choice but to adhere to the configuration dictated by the laws of physics that applied to the various situations occurring within it.

        I may be digressing into semantics here, but I do not believe that when the white billiard ball you speak of in your essay strikes the red one, it intended to strike it. Based on the physics of the situation, it had no choice but to strike it. If, given the physical constraints that should lead to a collision, the white ball somehow changed its course to avoid the red ball; that would signal intent on the part of the white ball, to me.

        All this said, I believe I know what you were trying to say, and I think you did a good job of presenting your case. What I am struggling with is whether or not you believe mindless mathematical laws can give rise to aim and intentions; and if so, how? You likely covered this in the essay, but somehow, I missed it. If you could just briefly respond to this question, I would greatly appreciate it.

        Regards,

        Bill Stubbs.

          Thanks, Bill. Good observations. Semantics are important in dealing with difficult questions. I tried to distinguish my use of the word "intention" from the more common meaning that conflates intention with conscious choice (agency). The billiard ball is not conscious. But it's movement plays a role in moving the universe forward and, in my definition, demonstrates intention. I would also argue that as we drill down from the apparent determinism of classical physics into the quantum realm, or up into the dynamics of complex systems, it becomes clear that choices are being made manifest in the intention demonstrated at the system level. I do not claim these are necessarily conscious - that's a different discussion.

          To be clear, I do not think mathematical laws give rise to aims and intentions. Mathematical laws do not act alone - they have to be activated by intentions. Mathematics provides permissible pathways for intentions to flows.

          As to being metaphysical, I believe the FQXi questions (at least the three I have participated in) are fundamentally metaphysical in character, and answering them requires inquiry that extends beyond the empirical. This was a key thesis in my 2015 essay The Hole at the Center of Creation.

          Regards - George

          Dear George Gantz,

          Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

          I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

          Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

          The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

          A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

          Joe Fisher, Realist

          Thank you Joe for reading my essay - I look forward to reading yours.

          I'm always wary of arguments that begin with that quote of Einstein's, an elegant variation of Occam's razor. Things can be made very simple by choosing not to see the complexity, by avoiding the nuance, or by relying on rhetoric. This was a key finding in my 2015 essay, The Hole at the Center of Creation. That said, while I am a big fan of infinity and zero, I really am not sure the one can stand alone........

          Cheers - George

          Nice essay Gantz,

          I am quoting few words from your essay......

          Imagine 100 monkeys typing (presumably randomly) on 100 typewriters for a limitless period of time. Eventually, hidden somewhere in the seemingly endless streams of nonsense, they would produce a perfect replica of Shakespeare's Hamlet. How can you tell the difference between nonsense and a work of art created intentionally? .................... Whatever the monkeys type, from the random typing to get a replica of Shakespeare's Hamlet I s virtually impossible, probability may be 1 part in 10 1000000000000

          According to our modern cosmology, the universe unfolded in a cascade of transitions and broken symmetries from the primordial state of the Big Bang. .................... For your information, in Dynamic Universe Model there is no Bigbang.

          From your abstract I am quoting the first and the last sentences .... "Over the past few decades, considerable progress has been made in explaining how complex, intelligent behaviors emerge in dynamic systems" ... &... "I make an argument for cosmic intentionality." This is exactly what I am doing in my essay. Universe is a Dynamical System and I am showing the intentionality. Here I am also proposing a fundamental property of Universe. It is reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe. As you are interested in fundamental questions , I request you to please have a look on my essay with a different type of fundamental ideology...

          For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

          Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

          With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

          Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

          Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

          http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

          Best wishes to your essay.

          For your blessings please................

          =snp. gupta

          SNP Gupta -

          Thank you for reading my essay and for your remarks. I look forward to reading yours!

          As for the 100 monkeys, please note that they type for a limitless period of time. Also, your probability estimate of 1 in 10^10^11 is still quite small compared to the number of quantum multiverses at 10^10^10^7.

          Many blessings and good luck with your essay - George

          8 days later

          Hi George

          You messaged me earlier, me being the author for (Dirty Wet Chemical Universal Awakening) however I have been away camping and hadn't had opportunity to properly respond. I read your essay the other day while on camp, and so briefly revised it again just now. I much enjoyed your ideas, questionings and contemplation's and will be rating your essay generously, in the minutes before voting closes to maximize its benefit for you.

          I appreciate opinions that confront the complexity problem, and clearly you are very thoughtful on the subject. You even mention within your intro the prospects for an evolving purposeful universe, which you might recall why I would find that notion of interest (Darwinian Physics). You go on to express the opinion that this is undecidable, and will likely remain that way. Which leads you and I to a point on contention which no doubt would make the basis of a very interesting discussion.

          Within your conclusion you ask the question, "do you believe the universe in an expression of randomness within mathematical forms, or do you believe there is a cosmic intentionality that provides generative guidance for the emergence of our universe in its unique specific configuration? My answer is, "intentionality implies intellectual choosing, and my theme for a Darwinian universal emergence cannot be said to be compatible with that notion. Evolutionary progression and direction is not chosen intelectually. But neither are the results of natural selection random chance, hence the selection component. So although I cannot answer yes to either of your questions, I have put forward a hypothesis that prospectively can provide decidability on the subject of why and how of universal nature, order and complexity.

          I respect your reservations for the multiverse theory. It promises to solve a problem while adding nothing new and tangible to the conversation. Drawing at straws.

          And a fun and joyful piece of writing. Thank you for sharing it with us.

          I will form a reply to your message on my page tomorrow, so hopefully if you dont have to many other distractions going on right now, you will join me there?

          Steven Andresen

          Hi Steven -

          Thank you. I will take a look at your page and respond.

          I admit that I intentionally (consciously!) ducked the question of "intellectual choosing" because of the quagmire that besets arguments concerning cosmic consciousness. The speculation that a direction / intention is at work in the evolution of the universe stands on its own and can be observed. The speculation that such intention is a conscious choice of some universal agent is rather more difficult to support and requires a significant leap of faith. This leap is compelling for some and anathema for others.

          Cheers - George