Order vs. Randomness

[Rayaan]

Yes, order and intelligence correlate because ORDER CAUSES INTELLIGENCE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

What needs to be emphasized is that order not only causes intelligence, but the intelligence itself is literally composed of order (such as the order in our bodies).

We are, essentially, patterns in spacetime. We are patterns in spacetime which are interacting with other patterns. And these patterns interacting with other patterns generates even more patterns, which we call things like "knowledge," "understanding," and "self-awareness." What we perceive as "knowledge" are rather simply patterns in spacetime that have been copied into our brains as "mental information" as a result of interacting with those patterns. These patterns themselves are what we perceive as intelligence, not just what causes intelligence. Therefore, at a fundamental level, order and intelligence are like the two sides of the same coin; they are one and the same thing.

The only difference is that order is visible, while intelligence is invisible. But as a single entity, the invisible is manifesting itself through the visible in every creation, invisibly, and the visible is manifesting itself through the invisible in every creation, visibly. Some people just look at the surface and that's why they don't realize that they are both real and both aspects of one another.

* * * * * * * * * *

That being said, since you agree that order causes intelligence, you are technically agreeing that the cause for intelligence boils down to orderly behavior, as opposed to random behavior.

And orderly behavior cannot emerge from pure randomness. That also means that if physical interactions changed from an "orderless behavior to an orderly behavior," then that change itself is governed by a more fundamental order, so the "orderless" behavior only appears to be random but not truly random ...

... which now makes the idea in letter B untenable in the formulation that I posted earlier:

---

1. If there was no fundamental intelligence or a mind behind reality, then it is simply not logical to think that the initial physical interactions changed from a seemingly orderless behavior to an orderly behavior all by themselves (especially to the degree of order we see in intelligent beings such as ourselves), unless you believe that:
A) all those interactions which created us had some kind of "a mind of their own" or
B) that the interactions going from an orderless behavior to an orderly behavior and then working in tandem to create us was purely a random/accidental process (of which the probability of happening is vanishingly small), or
C) that the laws of physics were finely tuned for intelligence to emerge, i.e. known as the anthropic principle.

2. If there is no fundamental order behind reality, then there would be nothing but randomness, since "randomness" means the absence of order.

Therefore, it is illogical to eliminate order and intelligence (either one or both) as being fundamental aspects of reality.

---

If you think it's letter A, then you're being contradictory, by assigning a mental state to inanimate matter while rejecting the existence of a fundamental intelligence behind them.

That leaves you with C as the last possible hypothesis, which is the anthropic principle, which states that the physical constants were so perfectly designed for life to exist that it is almost impossible that all of this was simply the result of a mindless, accidental cause. Therefore, it is more likely to be an intelligent cause.

Physicists have discovered that the constants and their values are so delicately balanced that if they were to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, then life could not exist. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to think that such a balance and harmony between the constants can be best explained by an underlying intelligence behind them.





Leonard Susskind (at the 17:16 mark in the video):

The fine tunings ... how fined tuned are they? Most of them are 1% sort of things. In other words if things are 1% different everything is bad and the physicists could say, "maybe those are just luck." On the other hand, this cosmological constant that's tuned to 1 part and 10 to the 120 ... [he repeats] 120 decimal places. Nobody thinks that's accidental. That is not a reasonable idea ... that something is tuned to 120 decimal places just by accident. That's the most extreme example of fine tuning.

Then the narrator in the documentary (David Malone) says:

No force in the history of cosmology has ever been discovered to be that finely tuned. The cosmological constant needs to be set to 1 part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Otherwise, the universe would be so drastically different that it would be impossible for us to evolve. That the cosmological constant arrived at such a tiny value by chance seemed to be out of the question.

The beginning was either an accidental beginning or it was an intentional beginning. The highly finely tuned forces suggest that the latter is much more probable.