The Nature of the Universe

[dad2bkmj]

i recommend going to http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm, you can listen to it or get a printable verson. it's a long read but i found it very informitive.

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by questor

James, i agree with you that there seems to be an underlying force or bundle of forces underneath the currently observable and mathematically provable ones.

Here I would avoid the use of the word force. The reason is that it represents a mechanical idea of the nature of cause. In my own work I have used the word but only when working to disprove theoretical physics. Also, I think the word underlying understates the case for what is actually occurring. There are only two properties of the universe that we can know of first hand. They are intelligence and information. This is why I have suggested to others in one or more of my past messages that it is revealing to consider the fact that we receive all information via photons. The point is that intelligence is not underlying, it is the whole thing.

Originally Posted by questor

a couple of caveats:
1. could it be we don't yet have the observational technology to detect forces which we may someday understand?

Here again I would avoid the use of the word force. Not only does it imply a mechanical nature, but it suggests that whatever it is technology could be used to detect it. The nature of the universe is defined by intelligence. We are naturally able to detect that by our own intelligent properties. Observational technology is only capable of detecting changes of velocity and patterns in changes of velocity. Changes of velocity are sufficient for mechanical analysis, but not sufficient for predicting or analyzing life and intelligence. There is unity in this universe. There is a single cause for all effects. It can be represented mechanically for mechanical purposes; however, for the purpose of understanding the nature of the universe, it must be not be artificially limited to mechanics. It must be viewed as the cause for change of velocity, life and intelligence. Mechanics is wholly incapable of meeting this requirement.

Originally Posted by questor

2. if there are such forces, why was a minor planet picked from the billions to present them? as yet, there is no evidence that there is intelligence
elsewhere.

Lets allow that the Big Bang is correct and the universe is perhaps 16 billion years old. This means that the earth has been in existence for 1/4 of that period of time. It could not have been in existence until after many stars had existed long enough to form sufficient quantities of the heavy elements from which it is formed. My point is that the earth actually appeared relatively rapidly considering all that had to occur. I do not think that the appearance of the earth represents an exception. I see not reason to assume that it is the only such planet or even the first such planet. If it occured here, then I would expect that this is an indication that it has occurred a in a great many locations, many perhaps long long ago and far far away. It is true that we have not detected evidence of other intelligences. However, if they existed even one or more billions of years before this earth, there are vast distances that make communication over this period of time impossible from almost all of the universe. Life has existed on earth for most of its existence, yet we sent out radio signals only about a hundred years ago.

Originally Posted by questor

3. if such forces do exist, would they not have a supernatural nature?
meaning that they could not be explained as phenomenae ruled by physical laws as we know them.

Intelligence is not a force. Force is not natural. It is a mechanical invention of the mind. I cannot accomplish anything by simply declaring this to be true. The mechanical interpretation of the universe is far too strong a belief. So, there is a first step that is necessary. It is to prove that theoretical physics is wrong about almost everything. This is done by developing a unified mechanical theory that outperforms standard theory. After this it is necessary to demonstrate that no mechanical theory can account for life and intelligence. Both of these can be done. Once the belief that mechanics defines what is natural is disposed of, we can begin to finally investigate the evolution of life and intelligence. Where is the evidence that intelligence is not natural? We know it exists. It is the only thing that we can know exists for certain. Mechanics cannot account for it. Only intelligence can account for intelligence. If this is not clear, then I will endeavor to make it clear.

Originally Posted by questor

you are trying to present a theory which i have tried to argue on several threads. i hope you have more luck than i did, because most people cannot separate the idea of a creator from their own ingrained ideas of the God of
man-made religions.

First I will point out that zero null points in physics equations cannot define the origin of the universe. There are no physics equations that begin with nothing as their premise. It does not matter whether one believes in mechanics or intelligence, the origin of the universe presents the same challenge for all. It does not matter whether one believes in a Creator or not. No one escapes the fact that there is no way to account for a cause for the origin of the universe. Everybody is challenged by Creation whether or not they believe in a Creator.

I am not trying to define the nature of God. I am trying to define the nature of intelligence. It is the nature of intelligence that will reveal to us the nature of the universe. I am not relying upon luck, that is why there is a new physics theory at my website. It is there for the purpose of freeing us from the quagmire in which we are presently stuck. We need to be freed so that we may begin to progress in understanding the real nature of the universe.

[thordaddy]

The nature of intelligence is first survival and then acceleration (direction). It realizes its true nature by avoiding misdirection (explicitly false instructions) and thus evolves through specific mutations and artificial selection.

[thordaddy]

It seems that in order to reach finality on the origins we must reach finality on the evolution of intelligence. To see the cause we will have to see the effect (intelligence) in its ENTIRETY. Only when intelligence evolves (avoids misdirection) to its maximum expression (an absence of misdirection) will it have any chance of telling us how it began and WHY. Does this mean Intelligence will continue to evolve by specific mutation and artificial selection or will Intelligence recognize that humans, being the most successful expression of its nature, can embark on a program of perfect mutation and perfect selection?

[thordaddy]

Just want to say HI and how interesting this thread is. I did read all 10 pages of posting and hope I can just throw some ideas around.

The nature of intelligence is its maximum expression. Intelligence will reach its maximum expression when completely absent of misdirection ie, random mutations and "natural selection" (imperfect evolution/false instruction). It will then necessarily find "direction" in specific mutations and artificial selection (perfect evolution). Then Intelligence finds itself in a moral quandary. Is its maximum expression (The One Effect) worth destroying its most successful experiment in order to know it all (The Cause, origin) AND BE recognized for it?

"I am Intelligence, hear me roar!"

[ldsoftwaresteve]

James Putnam:

Intelligence is not a force. Force is not natural. It is a mechanical invention of the mind. I cannot accomplish anything by simply declaring this to be true. The mechanical interpretation of the universe is far too strong a belief. So, there is a first step that is necessary. It is to prove that theoretical physics is wrong about almost everything. This is done by developing a unified mechanical theory that outperforms standard theory. After this it is necessary to demonstrate that no mechanical theory can account for life and intelligence. Both of these can be done. Once the belief that mechanics defines what is natural is disposed of, we can begin to finally investigate the evolution of life and intelligence. Where is the evidence that intelligence is not natural? We know it exists. It is the only thing that we can know exists for certain. Mechanics cannot account for it. Only intelligence can account for intelligence.

Have I said before that I like this idea? Well, I do. I like your approach James and wish you the best in this endeavor. Mark McCutcheon's book, "The Final Theory" also says that 'force' doesn't exist. That book also posits a single event that causes all properties of the universe. His event is expansion at the atomic level.
With him, though, he doesn't buy 'the big bang' or at least not as currently stated (assuming my understanding is correct). Instead, whatever the beginning was, the expansion rate was greater than it is today. The rate of expansion has changed and as material spread throughout the universe the rate of expansion changed, became less, and the particles started having properties, were able to join, combine, create galaxies, and behave according to the 'laws' they currently exhibit. I suppose the 'time' of pure entropy would be the 'time' before the current physical laws became operational.
He does not deal with life, however. You do. To me, it seems that life exists because it must and something about existence creates life from properties of existence that are 'lifelike'. All life, it seems, perceives something at some level. I would not be surprised to find out that the universe 'needs' to be perceived. After all, a universe without life would be a universe without meaning.
Your statement,

So, there is a first step that is necessary. It is to prove that theoretical physics is wrong about almost everything. This is done by developing a unified mechanical theory that outperforms standard theory. After this it is necessary to demonstrate that no mechanical theory can account for life and intelligence.

I suspect will turn out to be quite perceptive.
I wish you the best.

[questor]

James, if we are not to call it a force, then what shall we call it? we must have a name for discourse.
from your post, i gather you surmise intelligence existed before the BB, and was responsible for it. i would say that human intelligence would weigh quite lightly against the ponderance of information needed to create the universe.
if there was a creator of this transcendence ,what purpose would be served by the presence of man?
man needs neural wiring for thought, a creator needs nothing. man has some intelligence and is able to act upon information, but his role in the universe
seems totally unimportant. i would call man's capability thought rather than intelligence.
you seem to be quite intelligent, i hope you are not tilting at windmills.

[James Putnam]

Thank you for your remarks Steve.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

To me, it seems that life exists because it must and something about existence creates life from properties of existence that are 'lifelike'. All life, it seems, perceives something at some level. I would not be surprised to find out that the universe 'needs' to be perceived. After all, a universe without life would be a universe without meaning.

I agree with this statement. I have written about this and tried to develop the case for it. Its a lengthy ongoing effort. However, I think you stated the premise succinctly.

James

[thordaddy]

James,

I think an ode to a feminist slogan is in order.

"I am Intelligence, hear me roar."

The nature of intelligence seeks maximum expression. Its maximum expression is the entirety of the One Effect, maximum intelligence. It is aware but seeks an awareness of. Only the complete recognition of this One Effect can it hope to understand the its Cause. This One Effect births One Cause and helps define its evolution/design/goal. This evolution is called direction (maximum intelligence maximally expressed) and its defined by the absence of misdirection (false instruction/useless information/false expression).

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by questor

James, if we are not to call it a force, then what shall we call it? we must have a name for discourse.

You have a point. The fundamental properties of life and intelligence are as yet unknown. They are not even looked for. Mechanical force, customarily referred to simply as force, has been their theoretical substitute. Mechanical force is not the answer. I imagine that we will someday talk about the properties of the universe in terms similar to our present terminology for discussing intelligence. In the meantime, I refer to them as the fundamental properties of intelligence. I guess if the phrase intelligent force is preferred that it probably doesn't really matter. I think the point to keep in mind is that critics press for causes. The irony is that no one, regardless of their theory or belief, has ever scientifically identified causes. The nature of cause is scientifically unknown. This is true in spite of attempts to give names to imagined causes. Not a one of them is real. Even the appearance of charge in Coulomb's law is artificial. At least that is what I say in this short message. I can't argue the proofs here.

Originally Posted by questor

from your post, i gather you surmise intelligence existed before the BB, and was responsible for it. i would say that human intelligence would weigh quite lightly against the ponderance of information needed to create the universe.

I agree. When pressed to speculate I also say that any cause of the universe would have to represent far greator intelligence than what is included in the universe. I say this because the universe does not seem to have the ability to change its nature. A cause for its beginning would have to have this ability.

Originally Posted by questor

if there was a creator of this transcendence ,what purpose would be served by the presence of man
man needs neural wiring for thought, a creator needs nothing. man has some intelligence and is able to act upon information, but his role in the universe
seems totally unimportant.

The kind of answer I presently offer for consideration is this: The universe has fundamental properties of intelligence. They contain the potential for intelligent life, but they by themselves are not the realization of it. At this level the universe looks very much like it is mechanical. It is when higher and higher levels of intelligence are being realized that the true nature of the universe begins to clearly reveal itself. I do not imagine that the end result of this evolution could be a single highly intelligent universe. The non religious goal appears to me to be a transformation from low level generalized intelligent properties into human intelligence on an individual level. This is the means by which the universe may comprehend itself.

Originally Posted by questor

i would call man's capability thought rather than intelligence.

We receive all of our information via always changing, mixed storms of photons arriving at the speed of light, that can do nothing on that level except indicate a particle of matter has changed its velocity. There is no meaning there unless we already know how to find meaning. We are born with the intelligence necessary to interpret the universe.

Originally Posted by questor

you seem to be quite intelligent, i hope you are not tilting at windmills.

Thank you. What I said above can be viewed as opinion. It may or may not be interesting to others. What will be interesting to all is if physics theory is wrong. That is why physics theory comes first. If physics theory falls, that is not tilting at a windmill. Anyway we shall see. Thank you for your message.

James