Yes, the potential raw intelligence is there at the beginning like a seed, but it must unfold in order to actualize its potential. The same intelligence is operating at the atomic level, at the molecular level, at the cellular level, etc.

The only thing I'm saying is that this intelligence builds its own ladder and then climbs it rung by rung. At each level, new forms of logic become possible by virtue of the 'parts' and structures it produced in the prior emergence, like car parts. Once the general parts are there, then cars can be created, which gives rise to gas stations and freeways, which wouldn't make logical sense without the cars. It appears to me that we fundamentally agree except perhaps for a few details.

No, they are independent, discrete properties which very infrequently overlap. — 180 Proof

Sure the same way that tree is not as intelligent as a squirrel. I get you, yet we have both flora and fauna in this universe which over time emerged from non-life, after all this planet to begin with was a hot rock.

We know the process from non-life to life (abiogenesis) happened in the oceans under thermal vents where various chemical reactions could take place to non-organic matter to eventually simple cells such as bacteria and eventually multi-cellular ones and ultimately humans.

Life then before non-life was a possibility not actuality, the same applies to matter prior to the Big Bang, life for it too was a possibility given the right conditions it too could become alive. The question then is whether the same process of abiogenesis occurred there too and that is what is being contested here. Since we do know that life did emerge from a possibility to an actuality then it’s a question of likelihood whether this happened in a universe prior to the Big Bang is it not ? (Since non-life has the potential to become life under certain conditions)

How do you/we "know" this? — 180 Proof

Logic, something can’t come from nothing therefore something has always existed even if it’s vacuum it’s still something (space)

The question I have is…has intelligence always been around before this world was created prior to the Big Bang or was it simply an emergent phenomenon thereafter ?

In my opinion intelligence must have been pre-existing and manifested (or re-manifested) itself in life and nature and through us human beings.

As to how life emerged from non-life through abiogenesis which has not been observed scientifically remains a mystery which gives credence to a pervading intelligence prior to the existence of this universe. — kindred

I disagree. Intelligence did develop in complex organisms and it is cumulative -- so there must be the 'infrastructure' of brain and body. And this infrastructure must continue to change/progress in ways that could accommodate higher innovations.

It is not unreasonable to imagine that the universe is populated only by one-celled amoeba and nothing else.

It sounds like your view is that the intelligence must be there first before we could be the intelligent life forms. But it is more reasonable to think that matter must be there first -- the brain, the body, the senses for neural connections to occur.

The question then is whether the same process of abiogenesis occurred there too and that is what is being contested here. — kindred

I believe what is being contested here is the idea that anything that did happen had to happen.

pretty much, the rest seems to be technicalities. If intelligence did happen then it had to happen, we’re just arguing if it happened before or not. That’s it.

It sounds like your view is that the intelligence must be there first before we could be the intelligent life forms. But it is more reasonable to think that matter must be there first -- the brain, the body, the senses for neural connections to occur. — L'éléphant

Then that must mean intelligence precedes life in that it’s the potential for inanimate matter to become matter. Where did this intelligence come from ? My argument is that it’s been there all along and preceded life.

It seems you are basing that on some kind sense of likelihood. I don't think we can do any calculation of likelihood in this kind of case, so your conviction remains an intuitively or psychologically, not a rationally, motivated one. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but I think it's important to "call a spade a spade — Janus

We can’t do calculations but we do know that intelligence has been there all along like a latent force that eventually manifested itself in nature. Whether this has occurred only once in this universe on our planet for the first time is debatable as it could have easily existed/manifested prior to the current universe.

Then that must mean intelligence precedes life in that it’s the potential for inanimate matter to become matter. Where did this intelligence come from ? My argument is that it’s been there all along and preceded life. — kindred

Matter precedes intelligence.

t might "feel" coherent to you, but I bet you cannot give a coherent explanation of what it means. — Janus

Even ordinary time is not so easy to explain, but I don't think that helps your case. Is time just change, or is time a kind of "medium" in which change occurs? — Janus

Yes, this concept of time is like a medium in which change can occur. An analogy would be something like a stick with a joint. A joint like time allows for movement, and without it the stick remains unchanged. So it is the fundamental feature of this or any other universe.

Even ordinary time is not so easy to explain — Janus

The concept of 'ordinary time' is thought of as just a measurement of change, which is not the same thing. I can measure how much my stick with a joint moves, but it's not what allows for the movement itself. It is the same difference between gravity and weight, where weight is the measurement of gravity, not gravity itself. This ordinary time is also thought of as having an arrow which has to do with the spreading of entropy. Absolute time has no arrow because it is conceived of existing by itself without space or matter.

Let me ask this question again:
If time is change, and there were no time (no change), then what could possibly change for things to begin changing?

Matter precedes intelligence — L'éléphant

Then how or why did matter become intelligent unless intelligence was there to begin with.

something can’t come from nothing — kindred

Non-life =/= "nothing". Also, vacuum is not-a-thing (i.e. not-something aka "nothing") =/= nothing-ness (i.e. im-possibility aka "an impossible world"); "some-thing" is just a fluctuation / phase-state of not-a-thing (i.e. not-something) like order is a phase-state – dissipative structure – of disorder (i.e. chaos). Ergo the universe is only an expanding (cooling, or entropic) vacuum fluctuation that is/was random / acausal / non-intelligent.

and without it the stick remains unchanged — punos

How can the stick "remain" if there is no time?

I can measure how much my stick with a joint moves, but it's not what allows for the movement itself. — punos

Do you mean it is not the measurement which allows for the movement? How do you know this. One interpretation of QM would have it otherwise. Which is not to say that it is only we that measure.

If time is change, and there were no time (no change), then what could possibly change for things to begin changing? — punos

In that scenario time and change would not have begun. You seem to be still thinking in terms of there being something temporally prior to time, which would be a contradiction in terms.

Then how did matter become intelligent unless intelligence was there to begin with. — kindred

I think what you're really asking is how did consciousness or mind develop from the brain. This is the hard problem of philosophy. And this forum is teeming with threads like this -- really good ones, too.
The subjective experience is a hot button because 'no' philosophical accounts have given us the bridge from the physical to the phenomenal. The critics of consciousness and subjective experience had raised an unconscionable objection against the theories of perception that sort of 'skip' the step on when this -- this consciousness -- develops from physical bodies.
I don't have my own suspicion as to the strength of their argument because, to me, consciousness is physical. As in atomic. As in leptons. The fluidity of our own experience is physical.

I don't have my own suspicion as to the strength of their argument because, to me, consciousness is physical. As in atomic. As in leptons. The fluidity of our own experience is physical. — L'éléphant

Curiously, physics itself is largely mathematical in nature. The standard model of particle physics is understood in purely mathematical terms. But mathematics itself is not physical, but conceptual. How would you account for that?

How can the stick "remain" if there is no time? — Janus

Time in this context of the stick analogy is just the joint itself. The rest of the stick can be thought of as space. The stick when it is unbent at the joint represents the undifferentiated universe, and when bent represents differentiation. The analogy of course like all other analogies break down at some point. Its just a device to explain one aspect of what i'm trying to explain.

Do you mean it is not the measurement which allows for the movement? How do you know this. One interpretation of QM would have it otherwise. Which is not to say that it is only we that measure. — Janus

I do not believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. Things have to happen first, and then measured to be coherent. Why is it that we do not know the result of a measurement until the measurement is taken? Measurements are not decided upon arbitrarily prior to the event. If i think the cat is dead in the box does that mean when i open the box it will be dead? I can only know after the fact, not that i made it happen.

In that scenario time and change would not have begun. You seem to be still thinking in terms of there being something temporally prior to time, which would be a contradiction in terms. — Janus

So if time and change would not have never begun, then how does anything begin? Yes, i am thinking in terms of there being something temporally prior to the ARROW of time, which is not a contradiction in terms, but in fact two different terms.

I wish i could find another word for this concept apart from the word "time" that wouldn't cause so much confusion. Sometimes i hate human language... so limited.

Hi wayfarer thanks for your post. The question boils down to inevitability, possibility and actuality. Working in reverse we know that life (intelligence) has emerged which means it was possible. Now the last step is whether it was inevitable and since it was both possible and currently actual then it must follow that it is inevitable in an eternal universe. — kindred

Paul Davies has some writing on that:

Given a random distribution of [gravitating] matter, it is overwhelmingly more probable that it will form a black hole than a star or a cloud of dispersed gas. These considerations give a new slant, therefore, to the question of whether the Universe was created in an ordered or disordered state. If the initial state were chosen at random, it seems exceedingly probable that the big bang would have coughed out black holes rather than dispersed gases. The present arrangement of matter and energy, with matter spread thinly at relatively low density, in the form of stars and gas clouds would, apparently, only result from a very special choice of initial conditions. Roger Penrose has computed the odds against the observed Universe appearing by accident, given that the black-hole cosmos is so much more likely on a priori grounds. He estimates a figure of 10 raised to the power of 10 raised to the power of 30 [ie 10^10^30] to one...

...The upshot of these considerations is that the gravitational arrangement of the Universe is bafflingly regular and uniform*. There seems to be no obvious reason why the Universe did not go berserk, expanding in a chaotic and uncoordinated way, producing enormous black holes. Channeling the explosive violence into such a regular and organised pattern of motion seems like a miracle. Is it? Let us examine various responses to this mystery:

1. HIDDEN PRINCIPLE:

One could envisage a principle (or set of principles) which required, for example, the explosive vigour of the big bang to exactly match its gravitating power everywhere, so that the receding galaxies just escaped their own gravity...

Unfortunately, it cannot be that simple. If the Universe were exactly uniform, then no galaxies would have formed anyway. According to present understanding, it seems that the growth of galaxies from the primeval gases can only have occurred in the time available since the creation if the rudiments were present from the outset... If a fundamental principle does exist, it seems that it must allow just enough deviation from uniformity to permit the growth of galaxies, but not so much as to produce black holes. A delicate and complicated balancing act indeed!

2. DISSIPATION:

One possible explanation for the uniformity of the cosmic expansion is to suppose that the Universe started out with a highly non-uniform motion, but somehow dissipated the turbulence away...

...Two objections have been raised against this scenario. The first is that, however efficient the dissipation of primeval turbulence may be, it is always possible to find initial states which are so grossly distorted that a vestige will remain, in spite of the damping. At best one can only succeed in showing that the Universe must have belonged to a class of remarkable initial states.

The second objection is that all dissipation generates entropy. The violence of the primeval turbulence would be converted into enormous quantities of heat, far in excess of the observed quantity of the primeval heat radiation...

3. ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE:

Because a Universe full of black holes, or turbulent large scale motions is unlikely to be conducive to life, there is clearly room for an anthropic explanation of the uniformity of the Universe... One may envisage an [infinity] of universes covering every possible choice of initial expansion motion and distribution of matter. Only in the minute fraction which comes close to the arrangement in the observed Universe would life and observers form...

4. INFLATION:

Very recently (as of 1983) an entirely new approach to the cosmic uniformity problem has been suggested. It originates with the grand unified theories, and depends crucially on a number of assumptions about ultra-high energy matter which are debatable, and in any case hard to verify. Nevertheless it vividly demonstrates how an advance in fundamental physics can change our whole perspective of the origin of order in the Universe...

5. GOD:

If the grand unified theories fail, and if the anthropic argument is rejected, then the highly uniform nature of the Universe on the large scale might be advanced as evidence for a creative designer. It would, however, be negative evidence only. No one could be sure that future progress in our understanding of the physics of the early Universe might not uncover a perfectly satisfactory explanation for an orderly cosmos...

...There is, however, more to Nature than its mathematical laws and its complex order. A third ingredient requires explanation too: the so-called fundamental constants of Nature. It is in that province that we find the most surprising evidence for a grand design.

Let us look at a simple example due to Freeman Dyson. The nuclei of atoms are held together by the strong nuclear force whose origins lie with the quarks and gluons... If the force were weaker than it is, atomic nuclei would become unstable and disintegrate. [In deuterium, the link between the proton and the neutron] would be broken by quantum disruption if the nuclear force were only a few percent weaker. The effect would be dramatic. The sun, and most other stars, uses deuterium as a link in [the fusion reaction]. Remove deuterium and either the stars go out, or they [must] find a new nuclear pathway to generate their heat.

Equally dire consequences would ensue if the nuclear force were very slightly stronger. It would then be possible for two protons to overcome their mutual electric repulsion and stick together... In a world where the nuclear force was a few percent stronger, there would be virtually no hydrogen left over from the big bang. Although we do not know why the nuclear force has the strength it does, if it did not the Universe would be totally different in form. It is doubtful if life could exist.

What impresses many scientists is not so much the fact that alterations in the values of the fundamental constants would change the structure of the physical world, but that the observed structure is remarkably sensitive to such alterations. Only a minute shift in the strengths of the forces brings about a drastic change in the structure. Consider as another example the relative strengths of the electromagnetic and gravitational forces in matter. Both forces play an essential role in shaping the structure of stars...

...[Two types of stars, blue giants and red dwarfs] delimit a very narrow range of stellar masses. It so happens that the balance of forces inside stars is such that nearly all stars lie in this very narrow range between the blue giants and the red dwarfs. However, as pointed out by Brandon Carter, this happy circumstance is entirely the result of a remarkable numerical coincidence between the fundamental constants of Nature. An alteration in, say, the strengths of the gravitational force by a mere one part in 10 40 would be sufficient to throw out this numerical coincidence. In such a world, all stars would either be blue giants or red dwarfs. Stars like the sun would not exist, nor, one might argue, would any form of life that depends on solar-type stars for its sustenance...

...It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the Universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alterations of the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out. Such a conclusion can, of course, only be subjective. In the end, it boils down to a question of belief. Is it easier to believe in a cosmic designer than the multiplicity of universes necessary for the weak anthropic principle to work?... Perhaps future developments in science will lead to more direct evidence for other universes, but until then, the seemingly miraculous concurrence of numerical values that Nature has assigned to her fundamental constants must remain the most compelling evidence for an element of cosmic design — Paul Davies, God and the New Physics

* The 'baffling regularity' of the universe’s initial conditions, as described by Paul Davies and the astronomically low probability that Roger Penrose estimates, connects to what is known as the "naturalness problem" in physics.

The naturalness problem refers to the question of why certain physical parameters in the universe appear to be extremely fine-tuned or balanced in ways that seem highly improbable or unnatural, given the expected outcomes of random initial conditions. In the case of cosmology, this problem often arises in discussions of the early universe's smoothness, the distribution of matter and energy, and the apparent low entropy at the start of the Big Bang, which Penrose and others have pointed out should be overwhelmingly unlikely if chosen randomly. The same issue appears in particle physics, where the values of constants (like the cosmological constant or the Higgs boson mass) seem fine-tuned to allow for a universe like ours.

Davies and Penrose both highlight the improbability of our universe’s configuration, suggesting that a random distribution of matter would have led to a universe filled with black holes rather than one with stars and galaxies. This tension between the "expected" outcome and the "actual" outcome is central to the naturalness problem, prompting physicists to explore deeper explanations, such as multiverse theories, anthropic principles, or as-yet-undiscovered physical laws.

In any case, the upshot of all of this is that the notion that the universe exists as it does 'because of chance' holds no water.

Its just a device to explain one aspect of what i'm trying to explain. — punos

Well. sorry, I'm not getting it at all.

I can only know after the fact, not that i made it happen. — punos

I agree that you can't know you made it happen. But you can't know you didn't make it happen either. I don't have a problem with the idea of measurement (understood as being any kind of macro event) causing the collapse of the wave function.

So if time and change would not have never begun, then how does anything begin? — punos

The idea, as far as I understand it, is that the overall conditions that we understand as time and change never did begin. The point is that you are trying to understand something from an intuitive temporal perspective that seems obvious to you, but that doesn't belong to that perspective, and is thus not coherent in terms of that perspective.

Because we have reasons for doing things we do, we find it hard to grasp that the Universe could have evolved as it has purely on the basis of random accidents, and that our ideas of temporality and atemporality are most probably inadequate for assessing anything outside of our own limited ways of thinking.

There is no reason to think that we should be able to understand the nature of reality. The best we can do is to try to sort out what we can honestly say we do understand within the limited context of our knowledge and thought.

Well. sorry, I'm not getting it at all. — Janus

That's ok... i'm kinda used to it anyway. You don't have to keep trying if you don't want. I appreciate the effort.

I agree that you can't know you made it happen. But you can't know you didn't make it happen either. I don't have a problem with the idea of measurement (understood as being any kind of macro event) causing the collapse of the wave function. — Janus

I suspect that the collapse of the wave function is not a real and actual thing that happens in the world, instead it is a phenomena of the mind when knowledge or some form of data is acquired such as a measurement. The probabilistic nature of QM is not an aspect of QM, but an aspect of our state of ignorance and uncertainty. While we do not know something it remains a probabilistic outcome from a subjective perspective, and of course when one then takes a measurement, the uncertainty is resolved and thus it is said "the wave function has collapsed".

The point is that you are trying to understand something from an intuitive temporal perspective that seems obvious to you, but that doesn't belong to that perspective, and is thus not coherent in terms of that perspective. — Janus

Interesting, can you elaborate a little further on this issue of differential perspectives? What do you mean by doesn't belong to "that perspective"?

The probabilistic nature of QM is not an aspect of QM, but an aspect of our state of ignorance and uncertainty. — punos

That may be so, or it may not be so. How are we to assess the likelihood of either one or the other being the case? Better, I think, to admit our ignorance in such matters.

Interesting, can you elaborate a little further on this issue of differential perspectives? What do you mean by doesn't belong to "that perspective"? — punos

I mean that it seems unjustifiable to apply what seems obvious to us from within our temporally conditioned perspectives to what we imagine might lie altogether outside of temporality.

Thanks.

That may be so, or it may not be so. How are we to assess the likelihood of either one or the other being the case? Better, I think, to admit our ignorance in such matters. — Janus

I'm happy to admit my ignorance, but it is my ignorance that compels me to know. I don't give up so easily. One thing i do know just for myself is that there is always in principle a way to know what is currently unknown. Sometimes things seem too hard and insurmountable, or even impossible until one strikes upon the right idea that sets up the right perspective to see clearly enough for at least a potential solution. This is how knowledge evolves.

I mean that it seems unjustifiable to apply what seems obvious to us from within our temporally conditioned perspectives to what we imagine might lie altogether outside of temporality. — Janus

Maybe you are right, but it seems to me to be at least the first justifiable step, even if what seems obvious turns out to be wrong. But my whole point is that there is no such thing as non-temporality, either before or after the Big Bang.

Anyway, i hope to one day tell it like it is before my time runs out. :smile:

I agree. There’s certainly beauty and elegance in mathematical formulas describing the physical world and this is no mere chance but the product of an intelligence which predates the current universe. — kindred

Yes there is elegance in geometry, ratios and physical equations. In truth I don't think human cognition could work unless reality had inherent logic. Even the word logic comes from "Logos" -a primordial entity described by the ancients.

Intelligence is linked to "order" because order confers structure, rhythm, sequence, consistency, uniformity, spatial dimensions and relationships, patterns, all of which we use to gain our bearings in a rational way.

Order (and therefore intelligence) is also related to "negative entropy" -the opposite of disorder and chaos. There are two such states cited to have significant negative entropy. The cosmological singularity (a zero entropy dimensionless state) and Life (a system of order/self organisation that opposes entropy/minimises chaos to gain stability and complexity through time.

I'm inclined to avoid placing the cosmological singularity as "before" or "predating" the current universe as if its dimensionless -time didn't exist. Therefore it doesn't make any more sense to say its before (as that is contingent on linear time).

I would say the singularity being outside of Time would be just as "close" to the start as to all points in time. Which is a bit mind bending.

Patterner pretty much, the rest seems to be technicalities. If intelligence did happen then it had to happen, we’re just arguing if it happened before or not. That’s it. — kindred

What I bolded is what is being contested. It is not established fact. Until it is at least agreed upon (better if established as fact), there is no going on to "the rest."

Yes there is elegance in geometry, ratios and physical equations. In truth I don't think human cognition could work unless reality had inherent logic. Even the word logic comes from "Logos" -a primordial entity described by the ancients. — Benj96

Just a thought. I wonder if there are some human-centric assumptions inherent in this. If there is elegance in anything, it is surely because we have invented the notion of elegance (and cultures vary regarding what elegance looks like). We don't see elegance as such, we project ourselves onto the world and interpret or create notions of elegance.

You say human cognition may only work because reality has inherent logic. I'm not sure we can demonstrate that humans have access to reality as such or what reality even is. Isn't reality just a word we use for our attempts to make sense of things in the world we experience? It isn't surprising that we 'find' inherent logic - patterns and regularities in our experience since we seem to be pattern-finding creatures, a product or our relentless sense making. We can't even look at clouds or shadows without seeing people, creatures, shapes and faces - pareidolia.

According to Scheler, the modern worldview harbors a prejudice with respect to what counts as an experience or what is evidential. For the modern thinker, only those experiences that can be proven in a rational or logical manner are true or evidential experiences (GW V, 104). — SEP

I think the key issue here is repeatability. The capacity to reproduce a similitude of the experience (the observation), commonly known as the repeatability of an experiment, induces the conclusion that the observed phenomenon is understandable.

I believe, that where scientism misleads us is that it often conflates "understandable" with "understood". Many people take the capacity of science to predict as evidence that the predicted phenomenon is understood. This is clearly not the case in fields like physics, which operate from laws which enable prediction, with disregard for understanding. For example, "relativity" is a theory designed to enable prediction at the compromise of disabling understanding, producing ontologies such as model-based realism, which assume that true understanding is simply impossible.

The issue with the religious experience is that by its very nature it is unique. And, the fact that it is a unique experience proves something very important about the nature of the universe: its capacity to produce unique things. Uniqueness has no place in a world understood through the scientific process of repetition, and the application of general laws. However, uniqueness is a very real aspect of our world, and understanding the process whereby it is realized, comes into being, is a very important feature of understanding the nature of the world. This is a feature which science cannot understand, nor provide for us the capacity to understand, because science is specifically designed to ignore it (as the difference which does not make a difference).

That issue is not commonly approached by philosophers, many of whom simply assume the overarching power of the scientific process, to understand the world in absolute terms, through the capacity of prediction, which lays waste to uniqueness. However, it is very well addressed by Plato in "The Timaeus", where he introduces the concept of "matter" as that which is responsible for the uniqueness we observe within the world.

I think the key issue here is repeatability. The capacity to reproduce a similitude of the experience (the observation), commonly known as the repeatability of an experiment, induces the conclusion that the observed phenomenon is understandable. — Metaphysician Undercover

I see what Scheler is driving at, but I don't really agree that 'For the modern thinker, only those experiences that can be proven in a rational or logical manner are true or evidential experiences' really captures it. What should be said is, 'only what can be demonstrated empirically and/or proven logically or mathematically is taken to be evidential'. Here 'empirically' means 'validated by sensory observation' (including observation amplified by instruments).

Later in the same article we find 'For Scheler, the experience of the holy or of the absolute is not given through rational proof, but in the distinctive evidential mode of revelation'. What I think he's wanting to describe is 'transcendent insight' or gnosis. But the use of the term 'revelation' is problematical, in my view. 'Revealed truth' is generally understood to be a prophetic vision or communication by and from the deity. Again, I think I understand what he's driving at, but I would express it differently. But in the Western lexicon, there are many terms for what Buddhists and Hindus would describe as 'Jñāna' (or gnosis). It's invariably understood in terms of revelation rather than insight.

And I don't know if I agree that such insights are 'unique' in the sense of only pertaining to one individual. Consider the lineages of Mahāyāna Buddhist orders, which have for many generations practiced the transmission of the teaching from teacher to student, and recorded the sayings and teachings of its adepts in a recognisable framework of principles and practice. There are recognised stages of realisation in Buddhist literature (see for example the Ten Bhumis). There's really nothing synonymous in Western culture to my knowledge.

I'm thinking more along the lines of James' classic The Varieties of Religious Experience. In that book, there are many examples of various kinds of religious or spiritual insight. But of course that is all 'behind the firewall' as far as our culture is concerned. It doesn't amount to admissable evidence of anything save the subjective experience of individuals.

The point about many kinds of scientific observations, is that they often occur within a highly specified set of circumstances - the lab or the workshop. They are contrived to generate very specific kinds of evidence. Whereas a deep philosophical insight might not depend on any apparatus or any specific situation whatever. It might arise in a mind that is especially attuned or sensitive to a high level of insight, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this is subjective, in the sense of pertaining only to an individual. 'Transcendent' is neither subjective nor objective.

Deep issue, I guess.

I'm not sure we can demonstrate that humans have access to reality as such or what reality even is. Isn't reality just a word we use for our attempts to make sense of things in the world we experience? It isn't surprising that we 'find' inherent logic - patterns and regularities in our experience since we seem to be pattern-finding creatures, a product or our relentless sense making. — Tom Storm

Yes but the assumption made here is that reality is "outside" and therefore we are "projecting" our sense of logic or elegance onto it. But we are as much reality as the external environment. A technicality easily overlooked but not insignificant.

We have access to reality because we aren't separate from it. We are made of it from the bottom up and somewhere there along the hierarchy is the emergence of a sense of separation and individuality, subjectivity.

I'm a believer in the "as above so below" concept that fundamental phenomena reiterate and permeate all levels of reality regardless of the object - subject dichotomy. There are cycles, rhythms, fractals and geometry in our structure as sentient beings and these same basic patterns are found everywhere throughout nature. Echoes as it were of some innate law or building blocks that are as consistent and universal as they are seemingly diverse through their various reiterations.

That's the "intelligence" I refer to that is both shared by the "external" as it is by the "internal". They're not separable (we are dynamic and have inputs and and outputs both sensory/actionably and materially speaking) with our external environment.

However despite not being separable in any absolute or permanent sense, we still contend with such things as the hard problem of consciousness which makes the objective mechanics of the universe feel alien to the emergent fuzzy warm gloop of experience, even if the ability to be conscious is demonstrated by the universe through life systems.

I'm not a proponent of an objective and infinite multiverse, instead I propose our individual subjective frameworks are the "proverbial multiverse." That is...the universe according to each of us is each a unique framework or universe concept - a psychological multiverse (personalities/minds).

...The upshot of these considerations is that the gravitational arrangement of the Universe is bafflingly regular and uniform*. There seems to be no obvious reason why the Universe did not go berserk, expanding in a chaotic and uncoordinated way, producing enormous black holes. Channeling the explosive violence into such a regular and organised pattern of motion seems like a miracle. Is it? Let us examine various responses to this mystery: — Paul Davies, God and the New Physics

Thanks for that quote, in the context of Cosmic Intelligence. I read Davies' book many years ago. And it had a lasting effect on my personal worldview, both scientific and philosophical. As a scientist, his use of "God" in the title wouldn't be taken seriously if he was referring to primitive & traditional concepts of world-creating deities. Yet, he admitted that "there are many mysteries about the natural world that would be readily explained by postulating a "natural Deity". Which seems to be the implication of the OP.

The Big Bang Theory was originally described in terms that sound like a physical event that we typically call an "Explosion". But the actual explosions we observe or create could be characterized as Instant Entropy, and depicted as the vanishingly-brief flash of light emitted from New Years Day fireworks. Such an explosion converts stored Potential Energy into Kinetic Energy then back into the Nothingness of total Entropy. In an attempt to avoid that nothing-to-nothing flash-in-the-pan*1 implication, some scientists preferred to portray the event as-if a gradual & orderly "Expansion" , i.e. Evolution. Even so, no scientific theory has an explanation for the source of that cosmic causal Energy, or for the physical Laws that control & coordinate the evolutionary expansion of undefined Potential into the "organized patterns" of a self-defining Cosmos . . . . instead of the dissipated dust of expired Entropy.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution was an attempt to explain the emergence of living & thinking organisms from a purely material & mechanical system of Causation & Selection. Yet, he seemed to assume, as an unarticulated Axiom, that the necessary god-like Power & Logic existed eternally. Henri Bergson also had no explanation for the how & why of Evolution. But he recognized the necessity for some kind of Intelligent Design*2 in the title of his book : Creative Evolution. Unfortunately, our lack of direct evidence for a pre-bang Intelligence, limits any explanation for the original Cause & Laws --- necessary to program the Evolutionary Mechanism with logical rules (if-then, and/or) --- to rational Philosophical Speculation. Therefore, the OP question cannot be answered with empirical scientific facts. We can only apply our human form of Logic & Intelligence to continue the search for answers to Ontological questions. :cool:


*1. flash-in-the-pan : a sudden spasmodic effort that accomplishes nothing

*2. What is the most accurate definition of intelligence?
Although contemporary definitions of intelligence vary considerably, experts generally agree that intelligence involves mental abilities such as logic, reasoning, problem-solving, and planning.
https://www.verywellmind.com/theories-of-intelligence-2795035

the universe is only an expanding (cooling, or entropic) vacuum fluctuation that is/was random / acausal / non-intelligent. — 180 Proof

Would you say that explains everything?

A cat is only an expanding (cooling or entropic) vacuum fluctuation? A supernova? 14 galaxies? A number? Your self?

Seems to me that is an explanation for everything. Mic drop type “wisdom” for the ages. Conversation over. Whatever the next question is the answer is some other vacuum fluctuation. Chocolate and vanilla are both the same - versions of vacuum fluctuations.

the universe is only an expanding (cooling, or entropic) vacuum fluctuation that is/was random / acausal / non-intelligent.
— 180 Proof

Would you say that explains everything? — Fire Ologist

It only "explains" the planck era of the universe which excludes "intelligence" (re: @kindred's OP).

Seems to me that is an explanation for everything.

You are mistaken (hasty generalization).

Seems to me that is an explanation for everything.
You are mistaken (hasty generalization). — 180 Proof

What else is there besides vacuum fluctuations?