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

    Dear George,

    Very interesting and deep analytical essay. You give constructive concepts and ideas that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists and lyrics filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).

    I believe that the modern "crisis of understanding" » (K.V.Kopeykin "Souls "of atoms and "atoms"of the soul: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and the "three great problems of physics"), «trouble with physics (Lee Smolin," The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next") I believe that the modern "crisis of understanding" is a deep crisis of ontology and dialectics. Your essay gives hope that we will still be able to unravel the "thought of the Creator before the Creation Act" and build a model of the "self-aware Universe" (Vasily Nalimov) . My high score. I invite you to read and evaluate my ideas

    Yours faithfully,

    Vladimir

      Thank you, Vladimir - I look forward to reading your essay. What an immense breadth of ideas we are all struggling with, eh?

      -George

      Dear George,

      The poetic flavor with which you've tied together and built up an image of a living, intentional Universe I found curiously comforting.

      It's the kind of comfort longed for by Martin Fairweather, protagonist in John Updike's short story, The Accelerating Expansion of the Universe. Unfortunately, Fairweather accepts the 1998 supernova observations as sealing the fate of all life to a cosmic Big Freeze. He therefore finds no such comfort, but rather, sinks into an "estranging fever of depression."

      Since you too appear to accept the basic assumptions of Big Bang cosmology, your warm and fuzzy poetry--much as I really do like it--runs into a seemingly fatal contradiction. The Universe evidently intends to permanently put out our candle's brief hour upon the cosmic stage. According to prevailing ideas, we're quite inevitably doomed. Not much love in that.

      Nevertheless, I think the gist of your thesis may yet ring true, because I think the prevailing ideas are based on an utterly incorrect conception of gravity.

      It is commonly believed that Einstein's theory has been well-tested on scales from mm to the Solar System. Over this whole range, however, resides a vast untested regime: The most ponderable half of the gravitational Universe, inside matter. Gravity may seem to be well-tested over the surfaces of massive bodies, but empirical evidence from below the surfaces of massive bodies is woefully inadequate.

      My essay, Rethinking the Universe, draws attention to this empirical gap, as the idea of filling it arises by instinct from the perspective of an imaginary alien civilization who come to discover gravity for the first time. If their prediction for the result of the experiment (which is doable in an Earth-based laboratory or an orbiting satellite) is confirmed, the cosmic implications include an eternal, perhaps even living and loving Universe.

      I hope you enjoy it.

      Richard Benish

        Thank you Richard - I will look forward to taking your essay for a ride when I have time!

        I appreciate your comment. I would, however, suggest that the "fatal contradiction" you refer to is neither fatal nor disheartening. If the universe intended to snuff the candle, then why provide for dissipative adaption and the evolution of sentient beings?

        There are contradictions, however! These are essential and unavoidable, a necessary feature of recursive functions and consciousness alike. This was the topic is my 2015 essay: your link text]The Hole at the Center of Creation[/link] But nothing to feel discouraged about - just curious and joyful!

        Cheers - George

        Dear George,

        Life and consciousness clearly exist at the present moment. Playing Devil's Advocate, I would then argue that this is a marvelous stroke of luck. Given what is assumed to be known about our primordial beginnings (approximately infinite temperature and density) that this deathly state should, for the cosmic blink of an eye, give rise to all the wonders of conscious life is arguably a quite temporary fluke.

        (Continuing as Devil): We may like to invent comforting stories to explain our existence and to animate that which is more reasonably regarded as lifeless stuff, but validating such stories with scientific evidence remains a rather wishful dream. This becomes all the more obvious when contemplating the eventual fate of the cosmos, as it asymptotically approaches zero temperature and zero density--forevermore.

        (Exit Devil Mode): I disagree with this dismal prognosis because I think the "something [that] gets [and keeps] the ball rolling" is gravity; that, properly understood, gravity is what maintains (regulates?) the Universe at a constant temperature and density. I have a hunch that you will warm up to the "Rotonian perspective"--as presented in my essay, which explains this as a not only viable but testable alternative.

        According to this view--if one is allowed to wax a bit lyrical--the Cosmic Background Radiation temperature may be thought of as the body temperature of a living cosmic organism that never dies. The life-giving mechanisms that you so eloquently described in your essay have always existed and always will.

        Poetry rules! When backed by empirical evidence, words are not even needed.

        Cheers,

        Richard Benish

        Thank you Richard -

        Gravity is an EXAMPLE of intentionality, not the cause. Consciousness is not a stroke of luck - it is the final cause (teleologically speaking) to which the universe has been heading since the beginning...

        Regards! - George

        Well said, although I would point out that It is only a fight to those who are entrenched in their respective dogmas. Humility and curiosity are the virtues to which we should aspire, and which may yet lead us to the integration that both Voevodsky and I foresee.

        Regards - George

        Dear George,

        I would not presume to know that there was a beginning prior to conducting a test of the gravitational interior solutions. Categorical statements about universal consciousness and gravity's role in it surely may need to be revised if it should turn out that prevailing conceptions of gravity and cosmology are deeply wrong.

        When a test object is dropped into a hole through the center of a larger massive body, does it oscillate in the hole (standard prediction) or not ("Rotonian" prediction)? Do accelerometers tell the truth about their state of motion, or not?

        It is not scientific to pretend to know the answers to these questions before actually doing the experiment. Sadly, this is the standard response to the proposal to conduct the experiment, even as the the idea has been on the books at least since Galileo 385 years ago. What we think we know about gravity derives almost entirely from observations over the surfaces of gravitating bodies. We are way overdue to fill the gap inside matter by at last bringing Galileo's proposal to fruition.

        Among the many consequences---if the Rotonian prediction should be supported---would be radical changes in cosmology (and the occurrence of life therein) as argued above and in my essay.

        Thanks for your good work.

        Richard Benish

        Yes, George, I totally agree with You. It is very important that Voevodsky deals profoundly with the foundations of mathematics.

        You also do very great job of integrating science and religion on the portal The Swedenborg Center of Concord

        Wonderful words and goals:

        «Albert Einstein once wrote "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." This statement is at odds with the more common notions that science and religion are in opposition or that science and religion are completely independent and deal with totally distinct questions. However, it succinctly captures the basic ideas to be found in this Forum: That science is increasingly dealing with ineluctable limits that reach metaphysical and theological questions; That religion needs open inquiry and reasoning to remain viable as the source of transcendent insight rather than mere dogma; That human life has both physical and spiritual dimensions that we must cherish and explore as we seek to be truly whole.»

        Here I think it is also important to recall Hegel's words: "An educated people without a metaphysics is like a richly decorated temple without a holy of holies."

        I once again read the biography of Emanuel Swedenborg. He was a great man, scientist, philosopher!

        I wish you success!

        Sincerely,

        Vladimir

        • [deleted]

        • Post #31

        Hi George,

        I like your essay and I like your positive philosophy. It is a much welcome counterpoint to that of Mad Max and his Minions. I wish I could be as gracious as you are....but I need to say it as I feel it. I do think emotion is a part of the mix of reality and is a strong factor in "choice".

        For example: I posted on one of the minions blogs "your emperor is totally nude (in Italian)". This minion was a determinist but his emotion (or greed) caused him to delete my post (followed by my score plummeting). Was his choice determined by mathematics?

        Do take a look at my essay, before "they" remove this post.

        Thank you for your comprehensive, readable, and joyful essay.

        Don Limuti