Re: First Law of Intelligence and the Big Bang


Zoe 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?

You're setting up a false dichotomy: order can arise spontaneously
without intelligent input- it happens all the time as the predictable
result of the operation of the laws of physics. So while it is true
that intelligence causes order (though intelligence can create disorder
as well), it is not true that order is always caused by intelligence.
Your second problem is that, well, you really don't know much about the
Big Bang, do you? The Big Bang did not at all involve the annhiliation
of matter and antimatter at all, therefore your conclusion that we
should see far less matter and far more energy than we do if the Big
Bang were true is patently false. But even if it weren't, since your
first conclusion is invalid, your conclusion of intelligence
orchestrating the universe's beginning would still be invalid.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading