Intelligent Design in an Electric Universe?

[nick c]

It is pretty Interesting that Stephen Hawkings asserts that the net energy of the universe as a whole is zero.

Not sure of the source for this statement, but if so, how would he know that? or is an assertion by Hawking enough?

[VelisEtRemis]

You know what, I don't think a whole lot of Stephen Hawking, but even he can get it right occasionally! Apparently he co wrote a book on this very topic, but I won't read it! If you have anything truly Interesting and useful to say you should do it in a page and a half, like Watson and Crick!

[VelisEtRemis]

The subject of bio molecular self assembly is also of interest to this topic. As in reference to the work of Gerald Pollack. In an aqueous environment and given the correct conditions water structures itself in a process of self assembly which dominates in living organisms. It gives the cytoplasm it's negative charge, and the nucleus it's positive charge, and the resulting chirality the components of both, is a direct result of these conditions.

It is also Interesting that the aqueous environment of the living cell represents the standing field around which the organic molecules organize. Living proteins and nucleotides have no activity or life in them except when surrounded by the coherent organization of the aqueous environment in which they exist. These organizations are electrical in nature, based upon the principles of hydrophilicity or hydrophobicity.

The most clear demonstration of this is the formation of the non DNA transcriptive protein collagen which dominates the protein content of the body. Collagen is mostly formed by the three hydrophilic amino acids, glycine, lysine, and proline. Collagen self assembles in the aqueous environment of the living organism. No deity required, just add water. Is it magic? No but it is amazing, and from my perspective life is magic!

[VelisEtRemis]

Perhaps to be supremely involved in top down creation first you would have to understand the bottom up organization? I am certain that if a deity is in a position like this he does. And quite possibly we identify with this to some extent because we are creators ourselves and have an amount of insight into the bottom up order?

Does this imply that the universe is primarily a top down organization as the religious keep thumping us on about? I am a skeptic on this.

[VelisEtRemis]

Consciousness is the awareness of yourself as an independent, limited, entity in space, and the attempt to organize this identiy with your environment.

Perhaps we seek to be supreme creators. Striving to master the bottom up creation in order to enhance our organization of and identity within our environment? Do we strive to be god like, and maybe it is us who are responsible to find meaning and truth in this way? Is science a much hoped for pursuit for divine status?

[tayga]

If you're going to include an intelligent, organising influence in your model of the universe, I'd suggest the Hermetic model, which you would probably describe as intelligent, bottom up design.

The Kybalion talks about a universal cycle. Initially, the creator (The ALL, God, Universal Mind, etc.) involutes itself into its own creation so that it is totally fragmented and there is low-level, non self-aware consciousness in every piece of matter and behind every expression of energy. Then it seeks to evolute from (withdraw out of) its creation and return to its original non-dual state. This is the source of the evolutionary imperative, as described by Andrew Cohen, for example. On the way back up, or out, consciousness evolves self-awareness, ego, ie us, as one step on the way.

Interestingly enough, the Kybalion, written in 1908, starts with the words “We live in an Electric Universe”. Given the spiritual concept of vibration underlying all energy and matter, it would make sense that the fundamental physical principles are electromagnetic. The existence of an organising principle which becomes increasingly aware and learns from experience is also reflected in Rupert Sheldrake's morphic fields concept.

[jtb]

I think that if the universe is created and unfolds as it does strictly from bottom up causation without any top down causation, that this introduces the dilemma that there is no purpose to creation and that deity can only be found in the ultimate rules of physics. This seems pretty scary to me, so I choose not to think about it or identify with it much.

V, you are correct. Deity can only be found in the laws of physics--attempting to understand the mind of the lawgiver. We operate under the laws that already exist--we don’t make the laws. Science is an attempt to understand and explain the mind of the lawgiver.

You are also correct that there is no purpose to life if the cause of our existence is bottom up from inorganic matter spontaneously regenerating into more and more complex organic forms.

The universe does not unfold from the bottom up--it is understood from the bottom up. It’s similar to backward engineering an unknown enemy aircraft that was created for an unknown purpose. There had to be an intelligent designer of the item. We attempt to understand both the mind and the purpose of the designer and the physical laws under which he operated. We see the completed creation and attempt to backward engineer its origin.
jtb

[VelisEtRemis]

Interesting, but this begs the question, is coherence necessarily intelligent or is it just the expression of an algorithm. The algorithm could well be self caused and built into creation, requiring no intervention from a higher source. There are many examples of non living entities and objects that demonstrate coherence, but they are not intelligent in themselves because intelligence is responsive to its environment and organizes it as it understands the best organization it can have. Can we extrapolate the sum of all this to infer intelligence on a grand scheme? Can you have an environment when you are a totality of all that is. It seems clear that if it exists, it is not the sort that we understand.

To jump to any conclusions seems pure conjecture without any warranted clues that are not a circular argument? There doesn't seem to be any definitive evidence that an organizing conscious entity really is at the helm of this ship. So I assume that it is our job to find purpose!

[tayga]

There doesn't seem to be any definitive evidence that an organizing conscious entity really is at the helm of this ship.

I think it's a fair conclusion that any such evidence is insufficient to convince a majority of critical minds otherwise this wouldn't be a live topic of discussion. If you were looking to identify such evidence what criteria would you use?

[nick c]

There doesn't seem to be any definitive evidence that an organizing conscious entity really is at the helm of this ship.

Yes, and looking at it another way, how is "Intelligent Design" testable? Can we think of a test that will falsify the hypothesis? Nobody to my knowledge has ever proposed such a test, and is not falsifiability a key tenet of science?

[VelisEtRemis]

That reminds me of Douglas Admas proof of the non existence of god.

When was asked to prove his existence god replied that he couldn't because proof would deny faith, and without faith he is nothing....and then god disappeared in a puff of logic.

[VelisEtRemis]

The only rational conclusion is that we live in bottom up universe. Any top down creation is a fiction and the result of anthropocentric yearnings to explain reality at a fundamental level of the human mind.

Humanity, as a whole has never confronted this possibility directly. It is indeed in conflict with many programmed cultural ideas that societies have traditionally rallied around.

To question the established paradigms can indeed be perilous. But so are behaviours based upon myths that are truly fictitious and incomparable with survival. Life itself is about survival?

There may be many rewards associated with a sober assessment of truth. It may be difficult when the current consensus opposes the turnover of old ideas for new ones, but I think we are privileged to be in this position?

Ideas are destiny. The ideas you chose, ignore, and embrace are what you become, and your legacy.

[tayga]

The only rational conclusion is that we live in bottom up universe. Any top down creation is a fiction and the result of anthropocentric yearnings to explain reality at a fundamental level of the human mind.

That's an assertion. Can you justify it?

[jtb]

Interesting, but this begs the question, is coherence necessarily intelligent or is it just the expression of an algorithm. The algorithm could well be self caused and built into creation, requiring no intervention from a higher source. There are many examples of non living entities and objects that demonstrate coherence, but they are not intelligent in themselves because intelligence is responsive to its environment and organizes it as it understands the best organization it can have. Can we extrapolate the sum of all this to infer intelligence on a grand scheme? Can you have an environment when you are a totality of all that is. It seems clear that if it exists, it is not the sort that we understand.

To jump to any conclusions seems pure conjecture without any warranted clues that are not a circular argument? There doesn't seem to be any definitive evidence that an organizing conscious entity really is at the helm of this ship. So I assume that it is our job to find purpose!

V, thanks for letting me expound on your comments.
Coherence, or inorganic self organization, is the evidence of nature (environment) obeying the algorithms obviously built into many, if not all, facets of creation. Nature (environment) is the object of, not the originator of, algorithms. All I am saying is that someone in authority had to construct the algorithm and make the rules by which nature operates. Nature operates according to physical laws--nature is not the originator of the laws. We discover the rules, we don’t make them. Chaos--not coherence and algorithms--is the result of accident. Hopefully, the rule maker is more intelligent than the object for which the rules are constructed. The result of bottom up coherence and algorithms would be similar to letting your underage children make the rules for your home.

We are not the Captain of the good ship “Creation”--we are the crew. We don’t make the rules, we discover them. If we follow the Captain’s rules we are rewarded. If we don’t follow his rules we are punished. A successful engineer that knows the rules builds a safe bridge.

You are correct that it’s our job to find purpose. We do it every day. I pick up a pencil and determine it’s purpose. The purpose may be to pick my teeth or to write a note--I determine its purpose depending on the environment. At home I might pick my teeth. In the classroom I might take notes. It’s also our job to determine the purpose of our existence. Since we are crew members on the good ship “Creation”, it may be a good idea to consult the Captain as to our function here on Earth.
jtb

[VelisEtRemis]

I think that history shows that man has continually used whatever ideas that were on hand at the time in order to complete a system of understanding everything. Life is a peculiar state caught between the very tiny and the breathtakingly vast, and is the only entity that clearly demonstrates conscious awareness. That does not mean this can be projected upon other scales in good intellectual conscience.

The current judeo/Christian model analogies a family and the power structure typically within that. People at large can relate to this, and this accounts for its wide acceptance. Throughout history we have always anthropomorphised top down causality and rigorously argued for its existence, so that we become an integral part of the cosmos on a grand scale. And through all of this we have only made fools of ourselves?

What would happen if we accepted that there is no reason to accept top down causality except to stroke our own vanity? Would the human universe collapse, I don't think so.