The Present State of Physics, Mathematics, and Science

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".

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.

Hi Lorraine,

thanks for your reply.

You are correct, that's what I was after - what the term "intelligence" means, what intelligence is.

Assuming that there is a certain degree of "free will" in the real world, I am forced to conclude that one essential feature of intelligence is that whoever uses this intelligence, she/he has goals that it wishes to realize. Your goal was to answer me and tell me your point of view and where I may be wrong with my question and my conclusions.

I do not think that any significant level of intelligence is pretty much the same thing as consciousness in living things. Living things do not use their intelligence all the time, and when not using it, they are still conscious ( for example laying in a deck chair and enjoying the sun). Moreover, an essential ingredient of intelligence is that there is some logic (Boolean logic!) in the world that hasn't been created by the human mind, but obviously is independent of it.

I indeed believe that a significant level of higher-level information about the world existed at the beginning of the world. Your surely are correct to deny this when one assumes that the world is governed by some eternally valid physical laws. That assumption is the reason why so many people feel forced to subscribe to materialism, because mathematical laws imply complete determinism and the lack of goals. The lack of goals then is aimed to be explained away by some "compatibilism" and other highly confusing terms.

My take on the whole issue of a complete determinism is that it only SEEMS that the "laws of physics" are "laws" that have the power to enforce some physical behaviour. This enforcement in my opinion is just a man-made invention of causes and effects, a man-made correlation.

One can solve the puzzle of correlations by assuming the existence of a more intelligent entity than humans are and say that not only this entity has created the regularities we see in nature, but this entity does sustain or interrupt these regularities simply by its will to realize a certain goal. This also implies that violations of these "laws of physics" are not impossible. One can imagine all this by thinking of that superior intelligence as permanently pressing a button (what then means "physical laws in region X behave according to our known equations"). It does not matter how such a "magical" commandment of this superior intelligence then factually translates into the material matter obeying such a command - since obviously it doesn't also matter how an abstract mathematical law should translate into the material matter obeying it. And if this does not matter, it also does not matter how the stopping of that button-pressing is then translated into the material matter (it may well be a "restart" of some chunks of matter according to some goal-orientation of that superior intelligence I spoke of to enable some new initial conditions for that chunk of matter).

I assume that you don't like the idea of a Christian"God". But anyway I think that this idea could solve some logical problems (meta-) physics has to deal with, especially the problem of determinism, intelligence, freedom of thought and the fact that living things are goal-oriented (at least most of the time). Last but not least, it also could answer the quest about the existence of consciousness within a sea of inanimate, "deterministically" behaving matter (or alternatively spoken within a sea of inanimate mathematical equations and symbols).

Believing in God (especially in the Christian God) is surely considered by many people not only as old-fashioned, but also as stupid - and highly unattractive. There are two components which people do not like about that belief:

Firstly, for believing in something, one needs some good reasons. I would agree. The barrier for these people in my opinion is nonetheless that they do not search for such good reasons since they think these aren't existent. They only search for good reasons against such beliefs. But there are plenty of resources out there that sum up the main prophecies in the bible and their fulfilment during the course of history. The best resource I know is from Roger Liebi who studied not only all the ancient languages, the archaeological findings and their impact on all the familiar arguments against what is described in the bible, but also uses all non-Christian, Jewish-Hebrew-writings (Talmud and others) to put the propositions of the bible into the historical context. So anyone who wants to get a deeper insight into these issues can read his books.

Secondly, believing in a Christian God surely necessitates that one has to review one's self-conception. I think that is the hardest part, since only few people are willing to honestly do that.

But that's it for now since I know that this website is not for discussing the contents, details and subtleties of Christianity. I just wanted to mention that it needs reasons to believe in Christianity the same way it needs reasons to believe in any other package of assumptions. And for understanding a package of assumptions, one needs to examine the whole thing.

Stefan,

I would say that we individual human beings, and the rest of the (temporary) individuals in the living and non-living world, are the intelligence, the consciousness, of the world. And also, we (temporary) individuals are what moves the world.

If you will forgive me for saying so, the situation is more piteous, more heart-rending than religion with its virtuous obedient people, and hopes of salvation, would allow. What exists is the world; you can only love what exists; you can only love the world. But what is love? Despite what some might say, we don't yet have the intellectual infrastructure to understand such a thing. As opposed to a religion, I think that panpsychism is a more reasonable view of the world.

Dear Lorraine,

"If you will forgive me for saying so, the situation is more piteous, more heart-rending than religion with its virtuous obedient people, and hopes of salvation, would allow."

Yes, I agree. No Christian is a sin-free person, no Christian stops to commit sins in his/her life just because he/she believes in what Christianity says. I would also agree that the existence of love and the meaning of its existence is not fully graspable by our intellectual infrastructure. Nonetheless it exists. What is piteous and heart-rending in my opinion is that the same is true for evil.

Moreover, it seems to me that panpsychism on the one hand suggests an evolutive component of intelligence and consciousness (and perhaps a deeper understanding of "love"), but on the other hand I see a downtrend of intelligence and consciousness at work since the two world wars. Today, we have to deal with economical warfare, ideological warfare, religious warfare, political warfare, warfare in families and so on. I think the apostle Paul described it correctly with his words in 2 Timotheus 3,1 - 3,6.

If you read 3,1 you will read "in the last days". That is always the term for end time. It began 1882 when the first Jews returned from Russia to their land from their worldwide dispersion. That time of return was always defined in the bible with the end time. It was a guy named Hitler with its evil plans that enabled these Jews to now have their land again, just as promised in the bible. You may want to think about that coincidence.

Today is election day in Germany. For what party should I vote? And will it have an impact on climate change? I don't know since before and after an election are two different stories. I try to vote wisely.

We live in an age of computing. But physics, mathematics and philosophy, and their woolly-headed followers, are almost completely systems-illiterate.

1. Let's recap what a systems-illiterate physics gets so very wrong about the nature of the world:

Physics says that no matter what you do, whether you rape, pillage and murder, or you fly planes into the twin towers, no matter what you do, you couldn't have done otherwise because the laws of nature are causing your outcomes, you are not causing your outcomes.

No matter what the law courts might say, physics says that you couldn't have done otherwise. Physics says that you can't try to do something different, because that too would only be what the laws of nature cause you to do.

Physics says that it's the laws of nature that change every number for every variable; it's the laws of nature that have an effect on the world. Physics says that you personally have no effect on the world because physics says that you yourself can't assign the numbers for your own variables.

2. A systems-illiterate physics gets the nature of the world so very wrong because they've only got their equations. But there are ABSOLUTELY NO EQUATIONS that can, in any way, account for top-down causation by people or other living things.

Genuine top-down causation is the assignment of numbers to variables by people and other living things in response to situations. But you need to use Boolean and algorithmic symbols to symbolically represent this type of system.

Hi Stefan,

I hope that a good leader, and a good political party, is elected. The world lurches from crisis to crisis, but I don't think that there is any such thing as "last days". What is more the worry is that we "destroy the goose that laid the golden egg", i.e. we destroy the environment that sustains us.

Science and physics is about finding logical connections, via deductions and experiment.

For example, if our the initial assumptions about something are true and we choose the proper logical connections, the logical deductions that follow should be unambiguous and true. It is a bit like what Sherlock Holmes did so successfully. In this respect, a logical deduction of a truth leaves no room for alternatives, since (ultimate) reality - whatever it is - is true under all circumstances.

In other words, (ultimate) reality - whatever it is - cannot be true and false at the same time. If we accept this logical necessity, then all logical deductions that lead to some insights about (ultimate) reality are predetermined by the truth of that reality. In this respect, finding a certain truth about reality seems to be just like mathematics where 1+1 unambiguously equals 2.

At first sight, this seems to be good news for people that believe in a strict determinism of all of reality. However, we often do not know whether or not our initial assumptions are true nor do we know whether or not ultimate reality does allow the brains / minds of human beings figure out all "secrets" about ultimate reality Nor do we know whether or not ultimate reality allows some feasible experiments to decide certain questions. So we have at least three unknowns.

But if we assume that ultimate reality allows human beings to figure out what it is (and how it "works") we are left with the problem of how reliable our initial assumptions are that we used to start our deductions (and experiments) in the first place. If we additionally accept that all true deductions about ultimate reality are predetermined, we may be tempted to conclude that they all are "out there" and are within one's grasp. Some people that believe in a strict determinism then even may be tempted to think that they themselves are predetermined to find out some fundamental truths about ultimate reality, equalizing themselves with a deterministic process that is doomed to "calculate" these fundamental truths.

But if that strict determinism is indeed true, then all of our emotions, thoughts, deductions and conclusions are also strictly predetermined. Whether we nourish some stupid thoughts and conclusions about that reality or whether we nourish some highly intelligent thoughts doesn't matter in the framework of strict determinism, since every thought is predetermined. In this framework we then must state that the only difference between a stupid thought and an intelligent thought is that the latter has deterministically captured a truth about reality whereas the former hasn't.

But the crucial point here is that all these thoughts are not under our control, we have no power over them. A fortiori it is at the utmost remarkable to me that human beings can at all have logical thoughts within that deterministic framework. For example, according to a strict determinism, Alva Edison's conceptualisation of the carbon filament light bulb as well as the subsequent installations of all the electrical energy supplies around the world were simply predetermined by mindless physically deterministic acting processes.

The logical ambiguity that I identify with that strict determinism is that the latter is so suited for not only deterministically bringing about the countless huge scientific successes we see everywhere. Moreover, this strict determinism also let's us falsely conclude that we humans decided to start the adventure of science in the first place!

Within the framework of a strict determinism there is no entity to which one could ascribe a certain intelligence (because all thoughts, intelligent or stupid are predetermined). But IF we want to maintain that the world is logical - THEN we are forced to ascribe a certain intelligence to these mindless processes that brought about our huge scientific successes in the first place, since according to strict determinism these successes are at least partial truths about ultimate reality. MOREOVER, these mindless processes then (if the initial assumption of mindless deterministic processes is correct!) have enabled that we found out that they are mindless in the first place!

So are these strictly deterministic processes mindless or intelligent?

I hope that the ambiguity of taking that strict determinism for a fact now becomes clearer: a mindless ultimate reality at some point in time realizes with the help of logics and some human mind that it has to be considered as mindless - despite or even due to the huge "successes" of science ("successes" in quotation marks since that term has no meaning in a deterministic world where there are no goals to choose from)!

The ultimate last step of such a mindless process then may be that some scientists at some point in time may also conclude that what we call "consciousness" isn't really existent, but is just an illusion a mindless ultimate reality has about itself. Unfortunately for these scientist it can be predicted in my opinion that such a "logical" conclusion is incoherent - since illusions necessarily need some conscious subject to maintain them.

So my suspicion is that it could be really intelligent to accept that intelligence has some real power over the course of events in this world - as stupidity surely also has. Moreover, it seems to me that there must be an objective difference between intelligence and stupidity out there in the world - and not just in our minds like a strict determinism suggests! Remember, ultimate reality (whatever it is) cannot be considered to be true and false at the same time.

So my conclusion is that whatever ultimate reality is - it cannot be considered to be mindless at its very bottom, since otherwise we loose the distinction between intelligence (whatever it is) and stupidity (whatever it is) and the whole assumption of a strict determinism then looses its logical foundation right from the start.