The How and The Why of Emergence and Intention by George Gantz

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

The winner of the Fields Award, Vladimir Voevodsky said well about the outcome of the "struggle":«... There is a crisis of world science. Real progress will consist in very serious fight of science with religion which will end with their integration. And do not punch my face.»

Cheers - Vladimir

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

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

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

I like this one a lot George..

I strongly agree with your notion of Cosmic Intentionality, although we may differ about its origin. I greatly appreciate that you avoided the view of entropy as disorder entirely, and I think this added to the clarity of your presentation of entropy-related points. Tending toward greater homogeneity is a more useful metaphor. I like the focus on non-linear phenomena driving complexity, and on minimization strategies selecting for islands of order within the parameter space. It suggests that optimization problems found in the Calculus of Variations are a major part of the activity of living beings to maintain a livable state.

I disagree strongly with the notion of the 100 monkeys on typewriters; I don't think they could ever write Shakespeare, for the same reasons I spelled out to DeDeo regarding Borges' example with hexagonal rooms. One needs to also apply some condition of directionality, because a purely random sequence will not duplicate all of the elements of properly structured syntax - no matter how many trials there are. In my essay, I argue that what accomplishes this is non-associativity in higher-d Maths. I relate the Octonions to the Reflexive Universe idea of Arthur Young, as a way to explain the emergence of consciousness.

I'll continue below.

All the Best,

Jonathan

I like that you reject Reductionism as a default position..

I agree that bottom-up does not give the full picture, and that only a balance of top-down creativity with the bottom-up causality shows us the universe as it is. But my conversation with Tevian Dray at GR21 confirmed that there is a directional structuring in higher-dimensional Maths that even a lot of top experts fail to take into consideration. Arthur Young's work takes a process-theoretic view, and focuses on seven stage sequential evolution. This can be put into non-mathematical and personal terms, if the sequential levels of abstraction are strung into sentences.

One, open, as multiplicity and formless nothingness, finds peace in true relation and knows all as self.

A poem from the octonions... And I have several dozen more examples.

I like your inclusion of love and the notion it is universal. I think all living beings serve love on some level, but not all are aware of doing so; it appears that the ability to perceive and acknowledge love as a motivator is a hallmark of higher-evolved species and sentience. If one uses dictionary definitions, it is easy to show that even some rather barbaric acts satisfy the conditions of love service, but being conscious that love enters the picture seems to select for kindness over cruelty, as well as for cooperation.

So I find a lot to appreciate with this essay. While I am not in total agreement, you do hit the mark fairly often, and you are instructive about things that would otherwise be ignored - to our detriment. Thanks for sharing your insights.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear George Gantz,

Thank you for your lucid and upbeat essay. There are many things we agree upon and I am particularly intrigued by your perspective of whether intentionality can be recognized mathematically as a statistical anomaly (such as the group of monkeys on typewriters versus Shakespear himself). While I've heard this argument before, your essay has provided a perspective I did not have before. Thank you for that. I also wanted to let you know that I enjoyed your essay and have in the meantime, given it a rating too.

Regards,

Robert

Mr. George Gantz

Great conclusion!

This essay provided evidence that cosmic intentionality is a reasonable, consistent and complete inference about why the universe is the way it is. We can see that emergent processes exhibit intention, that systems are attracted to particular states while component units behave collaboratively in selecting those states, and that the entire process across and within levels is reciprocal. These qualities define the operative cosmic principle as love. We have the opportunity to embrace and reciprocate this love, with gratitude, joy and delight, and to believe that we are a meaningful part of a grand purpose.

However, where in our current standard model of the universe is the structure required to support cosmic intentionality? I think a greater structure is required to support your idea of a cosmic intention. At the risk of sounding self-promoting, my Reflective Field Theory may provide such a structure. At least, it provides a starting point and structure to expand your ideas. I think you would find my essay Our Emergent Universe interesting. You have my vote of a 10, great explanation of the issues. Philosophical questions need to be addressed like, "Exactly where and how do laws of nature exert influence and order?" I think my model points in the right direction. I would like to read your reaction.

Thank you, Graham

Hi George,

Having enjoyed your previous fqxi essay quite a lot (Lev said it should've taken the first place), we've been particularly looking forward to our exchange in this round. So, this is just a little reminder, since the time for that is coming to a close. In that regard, your questions above aren't quite clear to us. Please feel free to clarify them on our page.

Good luck!

Alexey.