Is the universe conscious?

[_Uncle Ed]

Well, this topic plays what is in my head all the time.

I was shown the word, "Panentheism". And I mistook it for "pantheism", naturally enough. Then I noticed the distinction and became a "Panentheist". It goes infinitely beyond "the universe is God". And if there is one core principle in pursuing "God", it is that we should never limit ourselves to believing in and studying a lesser concept than we can possibly imagine.

Saying that "the universe is conscious" is redundant to a Panentheist. Everything about the universe is part of the conscious Whole of Existence In The First Place.

There is no pursuit of "why" beyond our own human perceptions. "God" is pleased to do Existence In The First Place (indeed, the concept that God Is Existence is the biggest concept we are capable of). Our own Joy and pursuit thereof is the closest thing to "why". We are meant to be creatures of Joy.

[_DrW]

Tana,

To qualify as conscious, I would think that a system, ensemble, or entity would need to have the following 'modules', or perform the following functions, at a minimum (the first nine of which are present and accounted for in the human brain).

- Sensor package
- Perception module
- Analytical module
- Memory unit (comprised of working memory modules and long term memory modules.)
- Memory management module
- Attention priority director
- Decision making module
- Response module
- Energy source

- Operating system (nice to have - but could be emergent in a sufficiently complex 'neural network'.)

Would you agree?

If one includes self awareness as a requirement for consciousness, then the list might be longer. For now, let's assume that a system, ensemble, or entity can exhibit consciousness without being self aware. (Self awareness would require even more complexity - more modules - than are described above.)

Would you agree?

If so, could you identify these modules in the universe writ large, or even begin to explain how these functions may be emergent from the universe writ large?

I certainly can't.

[_Maksutov]

Parts of the universe, like parts of the human race, are self aware.

[_Choyo Chagas]

Parts of the universe, like parts of the human race, are self aware.

in the case of the human race, a small part only

i have no data about the universe



see:
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein

[_DrW]

My opening gambit is, if particles, and the apparatus the causes them is eternal/infinite/uncreated, then the scientific method of explaining why there is an existence - has problems. But if one can prove that particles came into being spontaneously from the equivalence of nothing....naturalism/materialism wins.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Or is it an un-skillful question?

Tana,

Short answer is that I mainly agree with your statement, and apologize that it took so long to provide a straight answer.

It may be not be possible to ever prove to a certainly that particles (matter and energy) came into existence spontaneously from the equivalent of nothing.

Nonetheless, as our models and the theories behind them develop, and as we invent better equipment for measurements, I believe it is reasonable to assume that we will one day have a "Theory of Everything" (ToE) that satisfactorily explains whatever major phenomena we observe in the universe. This will probably not be in my lifetime, but at some point in human history it would seem to be a certainly.

Furthermore, I believe that this theory and its set of equations will allow us to accurately predict what other phenomena we are likely to find out there, or at least help us understand how new phenomena work once they are found.

Some scientists may tell you that this kind of ToE is probably unattainable. And I will be the first to admit that we have a long way to go. I will also admit that whatever we eventually come up with as a ToE may have aspects that are entirely non-intuitive and don't seem to make sense. However, if the math works and the models are predictive and accurate, then we will have made it.

[_Uncle Ed]

What happens after you come up with more than one ToE? Because something as complex as the multiverse would have to have countless mathematical models that could be held to work.

[_Dantana]

- There is no clear dividing line between what constitutes a naturalist and non-naturalist account of creation. Typically, the ex-nihlo account the Bible presents is taken as the non-naturalist version, and the "always been there" is the naturalist view. When the Kraus book came out, I had to go back and read up on how it happened that an atheist was arguing for ex-nihlo, that was almost as crazy as Thomas Aquinas going Aristotelian.

I was also unaware as to naturalism - ex nihilo until DrW brought it up. It seems to me this viewpoint should be the one desired by naturalism, as the alternative, (eternal particles) just seems harder to explain using mechanical systems. Perhaps naturalism theory is upgrading due to recent scientific advancement.

- The naturalist, Aristotle, said there are 5 kinds of causes, the two most talked about are efficient cause (how) and final cause (why). Eternal or temporary, science only investigates *how*, *why* isn't on the radar for anything. In fact, the cosmological argument by Craig to show God is the creator is also restricted to *how* and doesn't consider *why*.

The answer was "C" then. 'Unskillful question'. I won't try to rephrase it as I see that DrW has given me the answer I was attempting to bully out.

- As Dr. W said, provide a definition of consciousness. Consciousness isn't a very scientific concept. The guy you linked to is by no means scientifically testing the universe for consciousness. Giving him the benefit of the doubt in the extreme, perhaps he's testing for intelligence, which isn't the same thing. I'll put money on the best human-written chess programs being more complex than a "smart" planet that can shift itself a little to the right, but are chess programs conscious?

I do not have the tools in my belt to build on this porch. The OP. was a distraction to get to the subject I wanted. First cause. As intimated earlier, in my opinion it is the only angle the idealist has using science, mechanics, thought experiment and just pure common sense.

- As a metaphor for what W said about textbooks, think of the institution of science as a tight rock band that puts out hit after hit, and think of the credentialed science writers who publish books about reality being a hologram as lead guitarists who step to the front of the stage and shred. Awesome, the guy has talent, but so what? Eighties rock will be listened to and covered until the extinction of humanity but out of all that great stuff, how many of the lead guitar solos wouldn't be better off just going into the trash?

- Finally, as a wise youth adviser from church told me when I bragged about the high decibel level of some rock concert, he said, "Gad, you can only hear so much". That was some profound advice. Likewise, you can only have your mind blown so much by fantastical ideas. Some of these theorists should slow down, and read a book on cinematography or something, and then take one deep idea and figure out how to build up tension in a world of normalcy, and then execute a perfectly timed plot twist. That's the kind of feeling we're after as an audience looking for the next greatest discovery. I kind of think that's what YOU are after, rather than specifically being after a specific kind of answer to something. The universe is conscious, conscious is quantum, quantum is just a hologram inside a virtual machine that was really the 17th dimension of a string in another reality. It's white noise that you can't possibly be getting anything out of but a headache.

I don't entirely follow, but the last sentence is indeed very good advice! Thanks Gadianton!

[_Dantana]

Well, this topic plays what is in my head all the time.

I was shown the word, "Panentheism". And I mistook it for "pantheism", naturally enough. Then I noticed the distinction and became a "Panentheist". It goes infinitely beyond "the universe is God". And if there is one core principle in pursuing "God", it is that we should never limit ourselves to believing in and studying a lesser concept than we can possibly imagine.

Saying that "the universe is conscious" is redundant to a Panentheist. Everything about the universe is part of the conscious Whole of Existence In The First Place.

There is no pursuit of "why" beyond our own human perceptions. "God" is pleased to do Existence In The First Place (indeed, the concept that God Is Existence is the biggest concept we are capable of). Our own Joy and pursuit thereof is the closest thing to "why". We are meant to be creatures of Joy.

Good to see you back in the game Q.B.! I was myself unaware of the difference in the 'Pans'.

Thanks for the post!

[_DrW]

What happens after you come up with more than one ToE? Because something as complex as the multiverse would have to have countless mathematical models that could be held to work.

Such a statement clearly indicates that you need to do a bit more homework regarding inflation, the concept of multiverses, and their relationship to this one, were they to actually exist..

[_Dantana]

My opening gambit is, if particles, and the apparatus the causes them is eternal/infinite/uncreated, then the scientific method of explaining why there is an existence - has problems. But if one can prove that particles came into being spontaneously from the equivalence of nothing....naturalism/materialism wins.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Or is it an un-skillful question?

Tana,

Short answer is that I mainly agree with your statement, and apologize that it took so long to provide a straight answer.

It may be not be possible to ever prove to a certainly that particles (matter and energy) came into existence spontaneously from the equivalent of nothing.

Nonetheless, as our models and the theories behind them develop, and as we invent better equipment for measurements, I believe it is reasonable to assume that we will one day have a "Theory of Everything" (ToE) that satisfactorily explains whatever major phenomena we observe in the universe. This will probably not be in my lifetime, but at some point in human history it would seem to be a certainly.

Furthermore, I believe that this theory and its set of equations will allow us to accurately predict what other phenomena we are likely to find out there, or at least help us understand how new phenomena work once they are found.

Some scientists may tell you that this kind of ToE is probably unattainable. And I will be the first to admit that we have a long way to go. I will also admit that whatever we eventually come up with as a ToE may have aspects that are entirely non-intuitive and don't seem to make sense. However, if the math works and the models are predictive and accurate, then we will have made it.

Thanks for responding DrW, you don't need to apologize, I was the one slow on the input.

What I have in my tool belt is common sense, (according to me) and thought experiment. What I don't have is a go to understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and Q physics. Is, ToE (simplified) A causes B, B causes C, C causes A? Also as Physics Guy suggests, not even physic's guy's know whats going on down there.... in the Q.