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

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.

I fully agree with everything you say. Best! inés.

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.

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

George, Nicely written, and thought out.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Hi George,

I could use some of your level headedness.

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.