Re: First Law of Intelligence and the Big Bang
- From: r norman <NotMyRealEmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 12:51:44 -0400
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 16:32:40 GMT, Zoe <muze10@xxxxxxx> wrote:
The first law of intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of chaos or
disorder in a system is inversely proportional to the level of applied
intelligence. Or vice versa, the level of organization or order in a
system is directly proportional to the level of applied intelligence.
(Okay, that's six of one and half-a-dozen of the other, but "six" is
handier when studying negatives and "1/2-dozen" is handier when
studying positives.)
If this law is unrefuted and allowed to stand, then it can be further
developed as follows:
The unit of measurement for applied intelligence, i.e., creative
mental activity, is the start-stop command. The more start-stop
commands that build on each other in a created item, the more evidence
there is of applied intelligence. How so?
Start-stop commands are evidence of decision-making, and
decision-making is the exclusive property of mental activity. Optimal
decision-making will produce the highest level of creativity, and the
highest level of creativity reflects choices of the best options
available. As aptly stated in Nature Neuroscience, "Learning the value
of options in an uncertain environment is central to optimal decision
making." July 2006, Volume 9, pp. 940-947.
Which brings up the concept of the big bang, a point in time where the
environment would be rife with uncertainties.
If the universe started with a big bang, as theorized, there perforce
is a necessity for the laws of intelligence to have been in operation
back then, based on the present state of the universe. Why so?
Well, the big bang is theorized to have occurred (for reasons unknown)
when matter and antimatter annihilated each other, resulting in pure
energy. And for further reasons unknown, the final outcome of this
annihilation is NOT an expanding body of photons, as one would expect
of such an event. Instead, we see a situation in which there exists a
preponderance of mass versus non-mass. Where equilibrium should
exist, there is, instead, marked disequilibrium. Why is this?
The scientific data reveals some hints, but no real answers. It is
left up to the proponents of varying worldviews to bring their
understanding to the data. Data such as?
Well, pure energy, they say, just might consist of n-dimensional
strings, vibrating at various frequencies. These frequencies interact
with each other in basic units labeled quarks and leptons, and the
mechanisms for these interactions are forces called gravity, strong
force, weak force, and electromagnetism. These forces cause quarks to
hang out together as units called hadrons, which units consist, only
in small part, of quarks, and in large part of.... good question.
Further, it is noted that strings, quarks, baryons, mesons and the
like do not whirl around in random, chaotic activity. For instance,
up quarks consistently have a 2/3 electrical charge and down quarks
consistently have a -1/3 electrical charge; and the same fractions
exist for charm/strange and top/bottom quarks......
Look, let me pause here for input, lest I overwhelm myself (puns,
mockery, objections and education entertained here) But let me just
sum up so far:
The kind of order seen at these most basic levels do not suggest that
the universe came about through random activity. Consistent
regularity implies decision making, whereas random behavior is never
consistent.
So....
If not random, then deliberate.
If deliberate, then planned.
If planned, then there is evidence of mental activity.
With me so far? May I proceed?
Not really. You started out saying that the opposite (inverse?
complement?) of "chaos" or "disorder" is necessarily "intelligence".
In other words, any spontaneous development of "order" or "regularity"
or "organization" must necessarily prove "intelligence".
Since your first law is wrong, everything that follows is wrong. It
has long been recognized (with Prigogine earning a Nobel Prize for the
effort) that localized regularities and localized order will develop
from a system moving spontaneously towards increased entropy or
disorder. There is no thermodynamic problem there, especially no
second law problem.
I won't quibble about your "unit of measurement" because it really
corresponds to one bit of information. If you choose one particular
notion of information (which I would imagine is sort of on a par with
"intelligence") then that is as good a measure an any other. Still,
you are on very shaky ground with this part of the argument. That
is, admittedly, being rather too kind. You really are standing
miraculously in midair, on no ground at all.
You are also on bad ground (or none at all) on the big bang -- which
is not the result of annihilation of matter and antimatter, but merely
a singularity in the cosmos. Nor is there a preponderance of mass vs.
non-mass since by far the largest part of the universe is supposed to
be some unknown "dark matter" . But, your physics aside, it is your
"First Law" where you go seriously wrong.
I apologize for not generating piles of puns, scorn, or personal
attacks. Those all can follow at a later date.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: The unDarwin?
- Next by Date: Re: The unDarwin?
- Previous by thread: First Law of Intelligence and the Big Bang
- Next by thread: Re: First Law of Intelligence and the Big Bang
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
