Hi Steve,

take also care Steve, and may the force of the three spheres be always with you!!!

Hi Lorraine,

in the case of the crashing twin-towers, the term "top-down causation" becomes a striking new twist to the crumbling down of them. I agree that this was caused by a deliberate act of human beings, of course with the help of physics.

Concerning what's wrong with physics I would say that we even don't know what the difference between a physical "thing"and a "non-physical" thing is - because we neither do know what's the complete essence of "physical" entails nor do we know what's the complete essence of "non-physical"entails. And I see no reasons why both cannot interact, only because they are thought of as being of somewhat different "essences". This does not mean that consciousness is produced by matter, it only means that there are two different "essences" with two different sets of rules that may built a certain intersection that is neither mathematical nor chaotic.

A living thing is not a like set of individual isolated ingredients, or a set of individual isolated characteristics:

"variable1=number1 IS TRUE" ; "variable2=number2 IS TRUE" ; ... ; "variableN=numberN IS TRUE".

A living thing or a molecule is like a whole, an information-integrated entity, representable as something like:

"variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND ... AND variableN=numberN IS TRUE", but with further collating and summarising logical order imposed on it, something like:

"IF variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 THEN newvariable1= newnumber1".

This information-integration, with collating and summarising logical order, does not "emerge" from the epiphenomena of so-called "complexity" (the shapes of clouds are epiphenomena) because the world does not have an overview of itself whereby it discerns the shapes of the clouds. The only entities that discern the shapes of clouds are entities like human beings, that are already information-integrated entities.

And the information-integration, with collating and summarising logical order (represented by Boolean and algorithmic symbols), does not derive from, and can't be derived from, the laws of nature (represented by equations). The aspect of the world represented by Boolean and algorithmic symbols is a separate, foundational, "top-down" aspect of the world.

The situation represented by:

"variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND ... AND variableN=numberN IS TRUE", with further collating and summarising logical order, can't be handled by the law of nature rules (represented by equations): at least some individual on-the-spot rules ("free will" assigning numbers to variables) is a necessary aspect of this system.

    Hi Lorraine,

    if I understood you correctly, you say that physics - its mathematical laws - are only dealing with quantities, numbers. Although there are some symbols involved for which we have a qualitative subjective feeling about (for example "wavelength"), the causal power of all these symbols is determined by their quantities, hence numbers. I would agree on that, we only have access to quantities, we can only evaluate quantitative relationships. The quest for the real nature of the entities that we observe by our quantitative measures cannot be answered by the laws of nature, by our quantitative measures.

    "A living thing or a molecule is like a whole, an information-integrated entity"

    Yes, I do agree. I also do agree that in standard physics, death matter does not use boolean logic to output its results over time. You made that clearer by pointing to the formation of clouds, where the atoms and molecules do not use boolean logic to produce a certain shape / result. I think nobody would think that these atoms and molecules "use" the laws of nature to accomplish a certain shape. But nonetheless some do interpret that shape such that it was the common effort of all the atoms and molecules "together" to form that shape - thereby bringing a certain element of "goal" into the issue. Surely, in a deterministic world, no atoms and molecules do "work together" to accomplish a certain goal and in a deterministic world there will nowhere be found a "plan" to form a cloud. In a deterministic world there are only the laws of physics and these laws have not incorporated any "plans". Especially they have no plans to use "other" laws of nature to accomplish a certain goal.

    On the other hand, this happened when the twin-towers were attacked. The terrorists used some laws of nature (flying planes to reach the top of some buildings), high momentum of huge masses of matter etc. So you are right, they combined certain different sets of laws of nature in a boolean fashion to accomplish their goals. Of course, those people that believe in a strict deterministic world would say that all of this is due to some initial conditions of myriads of atoms that have acted exactly according to the known laws of physics for billions of years to produce that terrorist attack.

    Now, for this line of reasoning to work, one would need either some very distinct initial conditions (among a myriad of "possible" conditions) or an unimaginably huge set of boolean combinations. Clearly, most determinists would say that it was the special initial conditions that made all of this happen. But that would leave the question open why there does at all exist boolean logic in the world (or logics at all). The determinists may answer that boolean logics is built into the foundations of the world by the existence of the laws of physics, since for example the gravitational laws either do exist or do not exist, either have the form they have or do not have the form we think they have. This would be a boolean "either-or". And since the terrorists decided to accept the gravitational laws, they had to somehow overcome them by using planes.

    Now let's look at what is wrong with physics today. Many (theoretical) physicists believe that somehow it is itself a law of nature that human beings are able in principle to find out all the answers to the quests of physical existence by the workings of their brains. This would mean that all the laws of physics couldn't be other than they are. If true, there is no more a boolean element that could be attached to these laws - one couldn't any more say "either-or". Moreover, for the complete set of laws (theory of everything), there wouldn't even be the chance for this set to be composed of some slightly different ingredients. So we not even could say that the set of laws (theory of everything) is composed of "law1 AND law2 AND law3" etc. as if there would be any alternative (for example law3 is not element of that set). In such a theory of everything, boolean logic with its AND, OR etc. would have no place, since in that set there is nothing to choose or to combine, there do not exist any alternatives. Every trial of decomposing that theory would be truly magical and here is why:

    For the case of finding such a theory of everything, boolean logics becomes superfluous - but still exists, and that is a contradiction. Remember, if such a theory for everything should be found in the future, it can only be found with the help of boolean logics. In other words: boolean logics would then disprove its own existence, what is deeply contradictory and therefore I do not subscribe to the idea of a theory of everything.

    So, where does boolean logics come from? Of course, many would say now that boolean logics stems from mathematics. But wait a minute: if everything is determined, even human thoughts and their mathematical conclusions, how can we know that the mathematics that is responsible for this determinism always leads human brains exclusively only to truths about the world, the physics and the mathematics? The answer is that determinism does not guarantee this and we have plenty of examples where human thinking fails to determine some physical or mathematical truths. In other words, there are plenty of wrong results out there in science (otherwise it wouldn't be science, but magic!). Nonetheless many physicists think that there not only exists a theory of everything, but moreover that this theory is such that it must be representable in a human brain.

    So we have a boolean element of "either-or" (theory of everything does exist or does not exist) and a boolean AND (AND it must be representable in a human brain). Even if boolean logics has its roots in mathematics, I see no reason how mathematics should encode the necessity for itself to deliver one and just one identifiable set of laws (theory of everything) and at the same time reveal to some human brains that this set not only exists but also is representable in principle by some human brains in the future. Clearly, this kind of belief in a theory of everything obviously has some kind of "goal" built into it, the goal of finding out the ultimate truth about existence. According to this kind of reasoning we end up with a deterministic process that at some stage not only will reveal itself as deterministic but also will reveal to the human brain the ultimate truth about existence. This then would be the ultimate case of "emergence", made possible by the ultimate "complexity" of mathematics itself: mathematics becomes self-conscious!

    So far, so fantastic. But the last question that a mathematical universe then must answer is why it is at all destined to become self-conscious? Can mathematics answer this last question WITHOUT also answering why it exists at all? And if this question is mathematically invalid because it indicates a boolean yes-no possibility (existence vs. non-existence) that is not existent at the most fundamental level, why then does boolean logics stem at all from mathematics - if there are no alternatives at all (neither in the deterministic world, nor in deterministic maths)? If mathematics can't answer that last question it wouldn't be more fundamental than the cloud in the sky you mentioned that has no plan to form a certain shape - and with that result a mathematical universe would be superfluous right from the start since it wouldn't have more information to offer than that cloud in the sky.

    So I agree that determinism isn't sufficient to completely describe the phenomenal world and I agree that there has to be something that - due to lack of better words - could be termed "top-down" influences.

    To shortly resume my main points here for a better understanding:

    I wrote

    "we have plenty of examples where human thinking fails to determine some physical or mathematical truths."

    If the universe is exclusively mathematical, then mathematics can produce false statements / thoughts about itself.

    And if it can, every musing / conviction about a purely mathematical universe could be such a false statement / thought. But that in turn couldn't be the case, since we presupposed right from the start that the universe is exclusively mathematical. So either the universe isn't exclusively mathematical or it is, in the sense that this is a mathematical result, "calculated" and represented in one's brain, and that result says about itself that it is mandatory to be true - and not false.

    So there is a "mathematical" result, originated in a brain that says that itself is true - since there is no possibility of "false" in that case. The question then is why the brain should be capable of producing scientific results that are sometimes false, but shouldn't fail when it comes to the question what the fundamental nature of these thought processes should be (namely exclusively mathematics). In the case of some false scientific results, one has falsely combined some boolean elements to come to a false conclusion (or simply has presupposed something that doesn't exist). The question now is why should the mathematical universe hypothesis be excluded from that kind of falsity? The answer is simply because it is only a hypothesis, not a scientifically proven fact (and with that we regain the option of the boolean either / or - either the hypothesis is true or it is false).

    Dear Lorraine, :) thanks a lot, I am touched by these words from you, take care too , friendly

    1. Physics can't tell you why the world ever moves, i.e. physics assumes that number jumps just happen. And in any case, physics can't tell you what numbers are, and physics can't tell you what a system is.

    A basic issue for any system is: how are you going to move the system i.e. how are you going to move the numbers for the variables? And clearly, the law of nature relationships can't explain what is jumping the numbers, they can merely explain the relationships between categories IF some of the numbers for the variables are jumped to a new value for some reason. In other words when it comes to the numbers, the system i.e. the world is inherently free (but structured by the relationships); and matter is the only candidate for what is jumping the numbers for some of the variables.

    But if you ask them, physicists can't tell you what a number is, and physicists can't tell you what a system is. So physics has assumed that the world must be inherently UNfree, because all they've got is the law of nature relationships.

      (continued)

      2. Physics has assumed that bottom-up causation IS top-down causation. So physics says that the laws of nature caused the planes to fly into the twin towers.

      The issue seems to be information. Physics can't explain the basic difference between: 1) the low-level information such as might apply to a single particle; and 2) the interconnected, collated and logically analysed information necessary for a living thing or a molecule to respond to its situation.

      It might be thought that the unprocessed information, that comes from light or sound waves interacting with the eyes or other senses, can be represented as variables and numbers. But from the point of view of a living thing or large molecule, the unprocessed information needs to be represented as:

      "variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND ... AND variableN=numberN IS TRUE".

      I.e. there exists an aspect of the world that can only be represented by the Boolean symbol "AND". Similarly, you can't use equations to represent the collation and analysis of information: you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to represent this aspect of the world.

      Boolean and algorithmic symbols represent a logical aspect of the world that can only be inferred, not measured; similarly, the equations that represent the laws of nature represent a relationship aspect of the world that can only be inferred, not measured; you can only measure the variables and numbers aspect of the world.

      Hi Lorraine,

      I think you are on to something.

      Let's make a Gedankenexperiment:

      1) Assume that everything that happens is determined by what happened just before and so on. So things can only happen as they happen and have no possibility to happen otherwise. In other words, let's assume strict determinism is true.

      2) Assume that also our feelings, thoughts, our complete conscious experience at any time is determined in the same way as described under 1).

      3) The consequences of 1) and 2) then would result into a kind of cosmic movie (film) that unfolds picture by picture.

      Now we ask where there could be some extra room for boolean logics in human thoughts? Since every thought is determined (by what happened just before in the brain/the world), every result of any "inference" obtained by conscious beings via boolean logics is also determined. And so are the results of all "collating" and "logical analysis" by human beings.

      This means that boolean logics has no effective power in the world, it only SEEMS that it has this effective power. The only effective power is determinism (however it may have come about in the distant past). It also means that neither consciousness has any effective power in the world, it only seems to us that it has.

      If we assume that the points 1)-3) are TRUE, then - magically -, a predetermined process in MY brain that hasn't followed some boolean logics, but only followed a mathematical calculation (remember, 1)-3) considers my brain to be merely a bunch of atoms, a complex mathematical pattern) OUTPUTS a profound result that has to be considered TRUE. And it would be TRUE not because I handled some boolean combinations in the appropriate way, but only because the past was what it was and the future is what it is (namely both deterministic).

      Hence, boolean logics would have no place at the fundamental level of reality and I wonder why it is possible that boolean logics nonetheless brought me to that analytical result. If we assume that 1)-3) are facts about the world, then we must also admit that boolean logics is NOT the entity that leads people to some insights about reality - it only SEEMS that boolean logics can do this, but according to 1)-3), it can do nothing.

      This is astonishing since nonetheless there is an analytical result. Moreover that result speaks about how it came about, and how it didn't came about. Consequently, if we assume that 1)-3) are facts about the world, we also have to admit that determinism is somewhat magically able to explain itself, whenever we FALSELY THINK (or believe) that we used boolean logics to analyse it. According to 1)-3) we haven't analysed anything, but determinism merely played out its next couples of pictures of the cosmic movie.

      Hi Stefan,

      Replying to your last couple of posts, this is the way I would put it:

      The symbols of physics and mathematics, that people use to represent the world, shouldn't be confused with the actual underlying reality of the world. But the symbols are important because, unlike words, they can clearly show the structure of the world. E.g. the symbols (together with experimental evidence) have shown that there ARE underlying relationships and associated numbers structuring the world.

      Regarding people flying planes into the twin towers, there seems to be 2 issues:

      1. If you model the world as a system, why is it moving, why are the numbers moving? Physics basically says either that the laws of nature are the entities that move/jump the numbers for the variables, or physics says that the numbers move/jump because that's just the way it is. But I would say that information-integrated matter, at all scales, are the entities that jump the numbers for their own variables; i.e. they create new numbers for their own variables; and that its only when these numbers jump that other numbers change, due to passive law of nature relationships.

      The world doesn't just automatically move; and the laws of nature are just passive relationships (represented by equations) that don't move the world. Matter moves the world; people change the world: you can call that "free will" because something entirely new has been created, and there are absolutely no rules of any type constraining it. But you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to symbolically represent matter jumping the numbers for their own variables.

      2. What is the difference (if any) between the information available to a particle and the information available to an integrated living thing? The only explanatory tool physics has in its toolbox is equations, variables and numbers, or something equivalent. But I think that information points to a type of dualism, a different aspect of the world that requires different types of symbols to represent it. I'd say that, in order to operate, a differentiated system needs to differentiate (discern difference in) its own equations, variables and numbers. I.e. this particular type of dualism, whereby a system differentiates its own equations, variables and numbers, is a NECESSARY aspect of a system.

      I'd say that the information available to a single particle can be symbolically represented as something like: "variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 IS TRUE"; and the basic information available to a living thing can be symbolically represented as something like: "variable1=number1 AND variable2=number2 AND ... AND variableN=numberN IS TRUE".

      So there is no essential difference between the basic information available to a particle and the basic information available to a living thing: information is ALWAYS a combined whole, from the point of view of matter. But, unlike the particle, the living thing can further collate and analyse this basic information (where collation and analysis can also only be represented using Boolean and algorithmic symbols). This collated and analysed information is the rationale that urges the living thing to move itself (change the numbers for its own variables) with respect to the world: this is top-down causation.

      Hi Lorraine,

      thanks for your explanations.

      I think I now better understand what you mean with your posts about Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

      Concerning information, I would agree that it plays a vital role in human behaviour (and also may play a vital role in the behaviour of matter). Nonetheless many actions of human beings are also motivated by what I in my earlier posts termed "beliefs".

      In my Gedankenexperiment above, the contradiction of Boolean logics leading one to some reliable truth values and the logical fact that a completely deterministic world doesn't leave any room for human inferencing shows (at least to me) that this contradiction came about because a BELIEF in determinism is confused with thinking that this determinism is an established FACT. So, we have facts (information) and beliefs.

      When continuing my above mentioned Gedankenexperiment by assuming that the points 1)-3) are facts (instead of beliefs, whether they are well-founded or not), I even arrive at the conclusion that whatever Artificial Intelligence will be able to "do" in the future, it will not be intelligent - because in a deterministic world AI simply comes about by an unavoidable deterministic chain, not by intelligence.

      I surely would be interested what Max Tegmark and other people that subscribe to determinism and AI had to say about this logical result. Nonetheless, in a deterministic world envisioned by these people, boolean logics has no power to come to any result.

      Even if we think that physical law number X governed particle Y such that result Z is a fact, we cannot speak of "IF physical law number X governed particle X such that result Z is a fact" - because in a deterministic world with eternal physical laws there is no logical alternative for the resulting facts. Hence, in a deterministic world, there is no IF, AND, OR.

      So it seems to me we both are on the same footing here: there is something missing in a deterministic world, and the missing thing is boolean logics with its freedom to choose in certain situations.

      Physics and mathematics are full of bad ideas. Like the idea that a mathematical system could exist that grows and develops and eventually turns into people, and other living things.

      Funny about that, because the only known mathematical systems only exist in the minds of people: people conjure them up in their minds; people represent them with special symbols; people differentiate the special symbols; people manipulate the symbols.

      Mathematics only exists because people create symbols, and differentiate (discern difference in) the symbols, and move the symbols. People are the main component of mathematics.

      Undeterred, physics and mathematics have come up with the bad idea that a mathematical system could exist that grows and develops, a mathematical system without the element provided by people. I.e. WITHOUT the element that differentiates the system and WITHOUT the element that moves the system.

      This is the current state of physics and mathematics: physicists and mathematicians have never noticed that it is PEOPLE doing physics and mathematics. Physicists and mathematicians need to extricate themselves from their symbolic systems. And the way to extricate themselves is to add an element that differentiates their systems, and an element that moves their systems. This element can only be symbolically represented by Boolean and algorithmic symbols.

      I wonder what in a strictly deterministic world could at all be defined as truly "intelligent". Although in a strictly deterministic world every thought and every inference a human being makes is predetermined, nonetheless there are scientific results that SEEM to be intelligent. I infer from this that in such a strictly deterministic world (merely a counterfactual world in our minds?) some intelligence must have set up the whole deterministic chain such that at least the impression of intelligence is created. But is the inference that there must be some real intelligence involved in existence (and be it only at the beginning of the Big Bang) justified? And is the mere creation of some false "impressions" within a human intelligence by a real intelligence (at the point of the Big Bang) really an intelligent move? And if the answer to this last question is "no", does this mean that there is no intelligence at all existent but only "correlations" (another world for "randomness"). And if everything is built up merely by some correlations, where does the intelligence come from to realize that "it's merely correlations"?

      I would prefer to choose my own thoughts intelligently instead of being predetermined to inference something about I do not know whether or not it is really based on some reliable logic. And I would infer that a real intelligence at the beginning of the Big Bang would prefer this also. So if we skip intelligence all together (at the beginning of the Big Bang as well as in the thought processes of human beings) in favour of a mysterious determinism, what would be left over from our beloved sciences?

        Hi Stefan,

        The equations and variables, that represent the laws of nature, can only represent mathematical relationships. What one can represent with Boolean and algorithmic symbols, that one CAN'T represent with equations is: 1) the logical organisation and global interconnection of information in a living thing; and 2) the free assignment of new numbers to variables in response to situations (if new numbers have been assigned, then other numbers for other variables are changed due to passive law of nature relationships).

        E.g. IF a tiger is approaching THEN move to a position behind a tree. To break this situation down into its elements, but without too much detail:

        1) Large numbers of light and sound waves interact with the eyes and ears of the person.

        2) The situation the person faces can be represented by the characteristics of these light and sound waves, something like "Variable1=Number1 AND Variable2=Number2 AND ... AND VariableN=NumberN IS TRUE" .

        3) This basic information is then logically organised (collated and analysed) by the person's brain, resulting in the higher-level information that a tiger is approaching.

        4) The person decides to move behind a tree in response to the situation, which can be represented as something like "IF tiger is approaching, THEN assign PositionNumber1 to PositionVariable1".

        Hi Stefan,

        The equations and variables, that represent the laws of nature, can only represent mathematical relationships. What one can represent with Boolean and algorithmic symbols, that one CAN'T represent with equations is: 1) the logical organisation and global interconnection of information in a living thing; and 2) the free assignment of new numbers to variables in response to situations (if these new numbers have been assigned, then other numbers for other variables are changed due to passive law of nature relationships).

        What this means is that there exists necessary, logical, interconnecting, free aspects of the world that we can only represent via the use of Boolean and algorithmic symbols. No matter what mathematicians do, it is impossible to derive this aspect of the world from the equations that represent the laws of nature.

        P.S.

        No matter what mathematicians do (and no matter what complexity theorists do, with their ideas of "emergence"), it is impossible to derive this aspect of the world from the equations that represent the laws of nature: this aspect was there all along, it is a foundational aspect of the world.

        Unfortunately there is not much participation here on this site.

        So it would be interesting (at least to me) to see an essay contest about the quest what the term "intelligence" does imply and what it doesn't imply.

        Moreover, I asked myself (in my posts above) whether or not it is "intelligent" to take a (super-) deterministic world for guaranteed where every thought and every inference a living thing makes (for example a human or an animal) is predetermined. If we take such a (super-) deterministic world for guaranteed, then, whatever the "logical" reasons for this belief (or true "insight"?) may be, consistently and consequently these beliefs or insights then came about deterministically and unavoidably in such a (super-) deterministic world.

        This then leads to a picture of living and thinking entities which are merely conscious "Zombies".

        I assume that I am not such a Zombie and assume that I arrived at the conclusions and inferences mentioned above by intelligently using some Boolean Logics. Surely, if (super-) determinism is correct, then the assumption that I am not such a Zombie is merely an unavoidable result of determinism. Many followers of such a (super-) determinism would then say that thinking "I am not a Zombie" is proof enough that (super-) determinism is correct.

        But for the case that it is correct, what about the statement "using Boolean Logics"? In a strictly deterministic world, no entity is able to use something to accomplish a certain goal - since every result is predetermined.

        On the other hand human beings do sciences successfully in many cases. Their goals for doing sciences may be merely some gain in knowledge or even some inventions that make life better. Some scientist even may believe that there is a theory of everything existent that can - and WILL be discovered - by human beings at some point in time. How does this belief relate to the belief that everything (without exception) is predetermined? What one at least can answer to this question is that if the belief about determinism AND the belief of a theory of everything that will be discovered by the human mind at some point in time are both correct - then ultimate reality is doomed to become conscious about itself at some point in time.

        By taking both above mentioned beliefs as realities, have we therefore foreshadowed the answer to the question where consciousness does come from and what it is? I think the answer is no, since we merely would have found a strong correlation between consciousness and the fundamental level of a deterministic world. Even more surprising in that case is that a deterministic world is destined to at some point in time deterministically producing some profound thoughts in the minds of the scientists that will be realized as the "theory of everything" (instead of writing "realized" we should better write "thought of as" since these thoughts of "realizing" something are also predetermined to be thought for these minds).

        So do the terms "intelligence", "goals" and "consciousness" make at all sense in a deterministic world? If we take it for guaranteed that a deterministic world is doomed to become conscious about itself without any goal-oriented intelligence behind it that is much bigger than human intelligence, then it seems to me that the hypothetical scenario of a deterministic world that enforces the conscious "realization" of its deterministic character at some point in time without no reason other than taking it for guaranteed does not prove the existence of any intelligence but merely the lack of it.

        Surely these thoughts of mine are predetermined in a deterministic world and therefore have no informative value. The main question therefore is what should count at all as some informative value in such a deterministic world - other than this world has to be considered deterministic? And how do we then discriminate the informative from the non-informative? If that discrimination is at all possible in such a deterministic world - does this discrimination necessarily needing some intelligence? But how can such a discrimination be possible at all when in such a deterministic world every thought is predetermined - independently of whether or not that thought contains some truth or not?

        The determinists may answer that these truths are intricately correlated with each other (maybe via mathematics) such that their consistent and full formation in ones mind is unavoidable at some point in time. Hence we have another term, namely "truth", which enters the deterministic equation. But when asked "truth about what?" it becomes clear that "truth" must - deterministically - be considered as everything that supports that kind of deterministic world view and "falseness" must deterministically be everything that does not support this deterministic world view. From a logical point of view then the premise of a deterministic world does prove the result to be true and the result does prove the premise to be true. So the next question would be to ask if internal consistency of a scientific theory is enough to really inform us about the nature of ultimate reality and about how "intelligence" should be defined (and can it at all be defined in a deterministic world)?

          Stefan,

          First, one has to try to define the essential features of "intelligence". Otherwise, how would anyone know, or agree with, what one was talking about?

          If one is claiming to describe the real world, then one needs to describe intelligence in terms of the symbolic language of physics and mathematics and, I would claim, in terms of the symbolic language and steps of computing (i.e. Boolean and algorithmic symbols). So Stefan, what terms are you going to use to describe "intelligence"? You need to use terms that connect "intelligence" to the real world.

          I would claim that the essential features of intelligence are the ability to discern difference in the world, and the ability to analyse these differences, leading to "higher-level" information about the world. I.e. any significant level of intelligence is pretty much the same thing as consciousness in living things; but, a basic level of intelligence is necessary and inherent in the world.

          If one wants to claim that a significant level of "higher-level" information about the world existed at the beginning of the world, then that is a much more difficult thing to do; that is an impossible claim to make.