If untold numbers of particles in the universe are quantum entangled, can the universe think? (Strange Universe Series)

Highly doubtful.
Sapience in humans evolved over millions of years under selective pressure. Intelligence on earth is the result of population mechanics, it emerged because it became an important tool for survival.
None of these things apply to the universe at large. There is no competition for resources, no quest for reproduction, nor any struggle for survival against a predator for the universe.
There is no advantage for the universe in having a more organised quantum network compared to a totally chaotic one.
And there is more. The neurons in human brains do not organise themselves to serve higher functions isolated from the outside. It does so because of external stimuli that reinforce certain connections. And even that is driven by an underlying quest for survival. The universe is self contained, has no external stimuli under which certain connections would reinforce themselves. I also know of no method which would even be able to re-entangle quanta over billions of light years for reinforced connections, which would be necessary in order to get the network to change at all, let alone to establish a neural net.

To paraphrase Neil DeGrasse Tyson, we (humans, aliens, AI) are the agents which enable the universe to think about itself and ponder its own existence.
The universe is in us, and we are part of the universe.

Happy New Year to you, too! GQ.

The universe is in you….........

You are in the universe….....

You becoming one with the universe is the ultimate
goal of all this creation and God.

This is the just as when jesus said The Father and I are one.

We all are one, no separation at all.

According to my magic eight ball it is decidedly so.

Don’t confuse necessary and sufficient conditions. Even if complexity and parallelism turn out to be necessary conditions for thought (that is, even if there could be no thought without them), that doesn’t mean they are sufficient conditions for thought (that is, anything that has them thinks).

The universe is god in the sense that it is all powerful and all knowing.
It’s good that you’re looking for the purpose of the universe as a whole, as it seems to be a closed system. But trying to figure out that purpose as a human is like a single celled organism trying to undersand you. The cell serves a purpose in my tummy but my life and it’s life are not things you can compare.

We could be gods thoughts, or we might be his digestive slime. Wouldn’t matter to us anyway.

@kess how high is you?

@Zyx In what way is the universe qua universe all-powerful or all-knowing? The universe does not have its own consciousness, so it doesn’t know anything. Things inside it know things—and even then, they don’t know everything there is to know. Similarly, things inside the universe have powers, but the universe itself doesn’t have its own will and does not do anything. The universe is the collection of all things that exist, not a separate entity.

See: category mistake, specifically the university example.

@SavoirFaire I respectfully disagree with there being any mistake.

The universe IS everything, the fact you consider yourself or your conciousness a seperate entity seems ridiculous to me.

@ragingloli Ha! Universes reproducing—copulating. Now there is a sexy thought to ring in the new year.

@TheOnlyNeffie Thanks!

@kess In that case, I am in. Nothing to do. I am already there and can’t step outside.

@AstroChuck Can’t argue with a Magic 8 Ball. Well you can—but you won’t get very far. :-)

@SavoirFaire Great point about necessary versis sufficient conditions. From what I have studied of the basis for sentience, complexity is a necessary condition. Self referential and the ability to readily form analogies (self-teaching networks) are necessary as well. But we truly don’t know if that is all it takes.

Given how little we really know about how sentience arises and what of those qualities the Universe may possesses, I do not believe we sould prove that @Zyx has made a gategory error.

@Zyx Read what I said again: I most certainly do not consider myself a separate entity from the universe. What I said was that the universe is the collection of all things that exist and that it is not a separate entity over and above them all. To say otherwise is a category mistake.

I will admit that @ETpro has a point that perhaps we cannot say for certain that the universe does not have the qualities you attribute to it. But the fact remains that your assertions are as yet unfounded. For even if we were to learn that the universe meets both the necessary and sufficient conditions for having knowledge, your comments about it being all-powerful and all-knowing are unsupported.

@SavoirFaire Great debate. I agree that there is no proof of a Universal consciousness. The lack of such proof is no proof it doesn’t exist, though. As you note, a lactobacilus living in my intestines would likely not find proof of my intelligence even if it were able to perceive such a thing.

Well, it was @Zyx who made the point about a bacteria in your intestines. And while it makes sense that our stature relative to the universe might make certain truths impossible for us to discover—for instance, if there are some that require a perspective that we cannot attain—I think we are in a better position than intestinal bacteria when it comes to figuring things out about the world. So while the analogy is informative, it is not necessarily parallel. It makes a good point about having some humility, but does not demonstrate that we cannot understand the universe.

That we cannot disprove something does not make it true—this fact cuts in both directions as far as this discussion is concerned—but in the absence of proof in either direction, it still makes sense to ask which conclusion our evidence best supports. The evidence we have, in conjunction with Occam’s Razor, suggests that it is more reasonable to do without the hypothesis of a conscious universe. Being aware of our fallibility, however, I agree that we must also remain open to whatever new evidence might be provided to us by @Zyx or anyone else.

@SavoirFaire Point taken. I certainly disn’t mean we cannot understand the Universe or should stop trying.

I think what I was saying is :That we cannot disprove something does not make it false. Agreed though that if I had to make a call based solely on existing evidence, I would say that the Universe is not sentient. :-)

@ETpro Sounds right to me!

According to brane theory, universes DO copulate (vibrating branes occasionally touch for a moment), and reproduce (when two branes collide, it releases a massive energy charge which we lovingly call the Big Bang).

@HungryGuy That may be, but plenty of people copulate without thinking!

The universe is the greatest intelligence possible, as it contains everything.

A more philosophical answer than I’m used to giving in this thread, but I think it’s appropriate. Considering that we will never be able to create a tool that is able to measure the intelligence of the universe because the ability to measure anything requires the ability to observe it, and it is impossible to gain a third party perspective of the universe for the purposes of observation as there is nothing outside the universe…we’re pretty much stuck with the metaphysical.

@iamthemob If I put ten intelligent people in one box and ten unintelligent people in a separate box, I am not justified in saying that the first box is more intelligent than the second box. I am only justified in saying that the people in the first box are more intelligent than the people in the second box. Neither box is intelligent.

Second, it doesn’t follow from the fact that the universe contains all actual intelligence that it contains all possible intelligence. Plenty of people could be more intelligent if only they tried.

@SavoirFaire – By the same argument, if you put ten billion intelligent brain cells in one person, and ten billion unintelligent brain cells in a separate person, you can only say that the brain cells in the first person are more intelligent. Neither person is intelligent.

@SavoirFaire – I think our disagreement there is more semantic than anything else. I am justified in saying that the first box is more intelligent because it contains a system that if put to a task will likely produce a more intelligent result. The fact that the individual components are sentient and the box itself is not does not mean that I cannot describe the entire box as an intelligent entity.

@HungryGuy Brain cells are not intelligent or unintelligent. Intelligence is an emergent feature of them. So no, it’s not the same argument at all.

@iamthemob The problem is that the question reifies the universe. It asks about the universe itself. That’s the category mistake I mentioned earlier. If your box argument is supposed to be parallel to the question, then, we need to interpret your attributions of intelligence to the box itself. If you are talking about the box metonymously or merely as a circumlocution for its contents, then we are not disagreeing.

The latter (which is why I thought our disagreement was more semantic than anything).

@iamthemob I figured as much. Just wanted to clarify.

@SavoirFaire – Do you know that with 100% certainty? What is the underlying cause of self-awareness? How does matter, arranged in certain complex patterns, become aware of itself?

@HungryGuy Absolute certainty is a myth, and so is the need for it. As already explained, I am a fallibilist. The mechanism of emergence is not yet fully understood, but we have better evidence for it than anything else (again, see above).

I would think not. Despite what the Singularity people might tell you, connectedness doesn’t automatically translate into sentience.

@HungryGuy & @SavoirFaire I don’t believe a really Big Bang is possible without thinking. Mindless copulation won’t get you there. :-)

@Nullo Yes. I think we have agreed on that. The strongest possible statement that remains logical is that it is remotely possible that it “might” result in sentience.

@ETpro Well, the brane theory that @HungryGuy mentioned does not require consciousness of any kind and is formulated without it. And according to Stephen Hawking, it’s possible that this universe has always existed. But I see no reason why the Big Bang couldn’t have happened as a matter of physicochemical reactions. If you are aware of some reasons why things couldn’t be that way, please do tell.

@SavoirFaire If I had any evidence that the Universe couldn’t have poofed into existence from nothing, or couldn’t have always existed but experienced a Big Bang due to entirely natural causes, I wouldn’t be asking this question.

I realized that none of the string theiry talk was about an intelligence guiding the Universe, but you have to admit that the notion that we may owe our existence to the fact that strings were banging their barnes out and gave birth to our Universe is pretty funny.

@ETpro It is funny, I’ll give you that!

You should write a sci-fi sticom about it!

Great question and one for deep thought. The Earth is alive and has intellegence as do other objects in space so the idea that the Universe does also is a great idea to think on. I will investigate that. Thanks,

@Summum Please present at least a modicum of evidence that the Earth itself, and not just things on it, is alive or has intelligence.

The only thing I can tell you is that the Earth spock to Enoch. There was a second purpose for the flood as well. The Earth was baptized with the flood and is evolving right now and is about to receive it’s paradisical glory. These are my personal things I have discovered so I should say IMHO.

Who is this Enoch and where can I meet him? When you say “about to receive its paradisaical glory,” on roughly what date will this happen? Do you have any verifiable evidence, or are these just paranormal musings?

You can google Enoch and see who he was. The Earths vibration has been changing for a few years now and is coming in tune with the 4th dimension and when this takes place it will change and evolve. I don’t know exactly when but it is very close and YOU might call these things paranormal musings but they are real to me and I have seen it. IMHO

When I Google Enoch, the only results I find are dead men who could not have possibly revealed anything to you. The fourth dimension, by the way, is time. Are you suggesting that we’ve been out of tune with time? And just what, exactly, have you seen?

I don’t like where this is going…

@iamthemob Neither do I, but I didn’t want to just let it go.

@SavoirFaire Ha! I haven’t seen a better derailleur since I took my 10-speed apart. Figuring out how to put THAT back together put me in an extra dimension.

@Summum I’d like to see where you’re getting this Enoch business. I know him as Noah’s great-grandfather. Koinonia House points out that his name means, “teaching, or commencement,” and credits him with the earliest recorded prophecy, which can be found on the other end of the Bible, in the Epistle of Jude:

14 It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, 15 to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

That’s it.

I read this story about multiple universes and the fact that they can collide (ours apparently has four times), and thought of this thread.

The City of Enoch was taken off the Earth and will return again with Christ. It was where the Gulf of Mexico is now.

@Summum Any old maps? Any ruins under the sea? Any evidence whatsoever? Or is this just a case of ”it’s true because you can’t prove it’s false”?

This is from my own experiences in life. No evidence as far as our science is concerned as with all things in the spiritual realm. If you ask you can receive and if you knock it can be opened to you. There is so much more to life than science. Seek and ye shall find.

@Summum I sought for many years and never found. Then I woke up. As for there being more to life than science, I’m well aware of that. If I thought otherwise, I’d be a scientist rather than a philosopher.

I too sought for many years and finally things opened up to me. It was after I passed away and was brought back that things really started to get open. I have been through so many things and seen so many things that frankly I don’t seem to be able to share with others because they just ignore it or try and tell me it is not so. And I understand that I too was skeptical most of my life.

@Summum Even if you are telling the truth, evidence that is only available to you is not evidence in any useful sense. Going on about it here serves absolutely no purpose, except perhaps to undermine your own viewpoint by making you look crazy. Rather than insist on the truth of things that you admit we don’t have evidence for, try making more general suggestions that might lead people to have evidence of their own.

But do it in response to questions where such responses would be relevant.

I will respond how I think appropriate as you do. There is far less evidence of things in this world than there is evidence so I choose to be who I am and true to that. If anyone doesn’t agree with it, it really doesn’t matter but for a few who are seeking some will find and I talk to quite a few in that regard. We all have to find our own reality and find our own information one cannot get what is needed from another.

@Summum I have no objection to you responding as you think appropriate. I was only making a suggestion that was meant to be helpful. You clearly want other people to believe and agree with you, but your actions undermine your intent. On the assumption that you aren’t completely irrational, I thought I would point out this tension. But in no way do I mean to suggest you aren’t free to do as you wish.

I understand that and did listen to your suggestion but again I am who I am. There are many who understand what I talk about from their own experiences as I have had. I really don’t care if anyone agrees with me I answer questions and hopefully open a mind a litte further than it was and they investigate for themselves.

@Summum Unfortunately, that is all rhetorical flourish. I could type the exact same words and it would have just as much force against you as it might have against me. Thus the logical force is nil.

If you are trying to understand life and the world, then it pays to examine the evidence. You have investigated and come to a view for which you admittedly have no evidence. I have investigated and come to a view for which I believe there is much evidence. What is the point of continuing this discourse if you have nothing to offer but a faith you cannot reasonably expect anyone to share?

Many share with me and I have looked at the evidence and there is absolutely no conflict between that and what cannot be proved. My experience is my reality and it is the only thing I can go by. I have studied the books and science.

@Summum Yes, your experience is all you can go by. I am not saying otherwise. Consistency, however, is not the only measure of truth. If there truly is no conflict between that for which we have evidence and the beliefs for which you have no evidence, that is one problem avoided for your beliefs. But there are probably plenty of beliefs you do not hold that are also consistent with the evidence.

As Bertrand Russell once said:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.”

I suspect you do not believe in Russell’s teapot. Similarly, I do not believe in this Enochian story of yours. Our exchange began with me asking if you had a reason for me to accept your assertion. You still have not given me one, despite making several replies. If you think no such reason exists, why not just say so at the beginning (especially if you “don’t care if anyone agrees with” you)?

I’m not trying to convince you of anything at all. I answered the question and was asked more and so I answered that. I can only answer based on what I know to be true. What I have answered I know to be true and therefore you have my answer. If you don’t accept that then that is fine but to call it nonsense or to say anything I have experienced is not so then I would say you have no idea and cannot make that statement. As with many things just because I say it doesn’t make it true. So I would want anyone that reads my responses to find out for them for that is the only way to know. All the evidence a man needs is there for everyone and is not anything that is difficult. The world and all that goes on here is very simplistic but many try and make it much more difficult than it is.

@Summum I have not called anything nonsense. But you have told me neither why I should believe what you believe nor how someone else could come to believe it. You say that it is not difficult to find, yet you won’t tell us where to look so that we can see for ourselves whether or not you are telling the truth. Though I suspect that if we looked ourselves and found that you were mistaken, you would simply retort that we hadn’t looked hard enough. A self-sealing argument if ever I saw one, and another argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy as well.

But this is jumping a little ahead, as you have not given this retort yet. Care to offer a falsifiable claim for testing?

In one of my questions I gave several places to begin to look for the answers. It is not up to me to have you find your answers. Think simple and understand that this life is a type of a life we came from. Open your mind and search out everything.

@Summum I’ll take that as a “no,” since you won’t even link to the question. I am not asking you to find answers for me. My life is literally dedicated to finding answers for myself. But you expressed a willingness to answer my questions, so I asked one. My mind is open, you just don’t like where it has taken me.

I will see if I can get the link to the question. Hold on.

http://www.fluther.com/108064/what-are-some-of-the-resources-in-finding-answers-beyond-what/

There is the link.

I have already investigated most of the things you mention in that thread long ago. The only one I was not familiar with was Summum. Now, you claim on the other thread that any one of these paths should be enough to lead one to “understanding.” My investigation of each has led nowhere, however, except to a rejection of them.

The thread you linked to here, and another one that is linked to from it, also suggest that you are not being truthful when you say that personal experience has led you to your current belief system (plagiarism hurts your credibility with more than just those who catch you at it).

Still, there is one claim you make that is potentially open to falsification or verification. You say that “this Earth is about to change and NOTHING anyone can do will change that.” So my question to you is this: when? I don’t need a day, but I’d at least like a year.

Seeing as you don’t believe me in the firsrt place I’m done trying to explain. Just open your heart and mind and seek. There is so much to learn for us. By the way I don’t lie.

“The Principles of knowing Creation are seven; those who know these possess the Magic Key to whose touch all locked doors open to Creation.”—Summum

Here is a passage for you from the Summum philosophy.

You haven’t tried to explain even in the first place. That has been your whole defense of having no evidence: that I have to find things out for myself. Then, when I ask a question that is actually subject to investigation, you abandon the discussion. This does not inspire confidence. But very well, back to the path I was on.

And by the way, plagiarism is not lying. It’s a different kind of offense.

You make negative comments to me and then you think I will continue with the conversation? Why would I or why would I want too. I’m not here to prove anything just giving my input and hoping that others begin the search. I have nothing against you but I have given several sites to go and look at and I have answered questions as far as I know them. I don’t lie about things and there is so much out there in this world. You can find it in so many places. There is no one place or thing to find it, it is a multiple search of many different sources. Try looking at those I have shown and I have no problem talking with anyone but I do have a problem with being negative.

I see you are so set on not continuing the conversation that you cannot avoid responding. And you are so indifferent on not proving anything, that you cannot help but defend yourself over and over again while creating more and more questions to promote your beliefs. I thank you for the leads you attempted to give me (and they were research suggestions, not links), but I have already investigated those and found them wanting. So like I said: back to the path I was on. Because it seems you are no longer able or willing to help me.

And yet again, I have not once accused you of lying. Guilty conscience, perhaps?

No guilty conscience. If you want to talk more I would be willing to do so privately.

If your path ever seems to warrant more investigation, you’re the first person I’ll contact.