Could the Universe be conscious?

Over the past 40 years, scientists gradually opened a strange fact about our Universe: its laws of physics and the initial conditions of the Universe are perfectly tuned in order for life got a chance to develop. It turns out that in order to have a life, some values of fundamental physics – for example, the force of gravity or the mass of the electron must fall in a certain range. This range is extremely narrow. And so, it is highly unlikely that a universe like ours will get a range of values, comparable to the existence of life. But she could not.

Here are some examples of fine-tuning for life:

  • The strong nuclear interaction (the force that ties together the elements in the nucleus of an atom) has a value of 0,007. If this value would be 0.006 or less, the Universe would be one hydrogen. If this value is 0.008 or higher, the hydrogen would be synthesized heavy elements. In both cases the chemical complexity would have been physically impossible. And without chemical complexity, there would be no life.
  • The physical possibility of chemical complexity also depends on the masses of the basic components of matter: electrons and quarks. If the mass of the bottom quark would have been three times larger, the Universe would be one hydrogen. If the electron mass was 2.5 times larger, the Universe would be only neutrinos: no atoms and no chemical reactions.
  • Gravity seems to be a powerful force, but it is much weaker than other forces acting on the atoms is about 1036 times. If gravity was even slightly stronger, stars would form from smaller amounts of material and would have been less, live less. Ordinary sun would have existed 10,000 years instead of 10 000 000 000, and time to help in the creation of complex life it would not exist. Conversely, if gravity was even slightly weaker, stars would be much colder and not explode the supernova. Life would be impossible, since supernovae are the main source of many heavy elements that formed the ingredients for life.

Some consider fine-tuning the basic fact about our Universe: may have been lucky, but the explanation is not required. But, like many scientists and philosophers, it seems to me incredible. In the “Life space” (1999), the physicist Lee Smolin has estimated the chance of existence of life in the Universe with all the fine tuning as 1 in 10of 229, from which he concludes:

“In my opinion, we can’t leave without an explanation so insignificant probability. Fortune here is exactly nothing to do with it; we need a rational explanation of how something like this happens”.

From fine-tuning there are two standard explanations: theism and the hypothesis of multiple universes. Theists claim that the Universe had a Creator, omnipotent and supernatural, and explain the fine-tuning of the good intentions of the Creator of the world. Life has no objective value; His or Her grace wanted to keep this a great value, so he created laws with constants that are compatible with the physical possibility of life. The multiple universe hypothesis postulates a vast, an infinite number of physical universes that differ from our own, which have implemented a number of different constant values. Given that a significant number of universes provide a large number of constants, it is not so impossible to create at least one universe with the “delicate”settings.

Both these theories can explain the fine-tuning. The problem is that at first glance they also make false predictions. For the theist a false prediction arises from the problem of evil. If we assume that the universe was created by a omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipotent being, no one expects this universe to contain a huge amount of undeserved suffering. In such a universe can be discovered life, and it’s not a surprise, but a surprise will be to learn through a terrible process of natural selection that life is gone. Why would a merciful God who is capable of everything, to create such a life? Thus, theism predicts a universe that is better than ours, and for this reason the shortcomings of our universe are strong arguments against the existence of God.

With regard to the hypothesis of the multiverse (multiple universes), false prediction arises from the so-called problem of the brain of Boltzmann, named after the 19th century Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, who first formulated the paradox of the observable Universe. Assuming the multiverse exists, we can also assume that our universe is quite a typical member of the ensemble of universes or at least quite a typical member of the ensemble of universes with observers (since we can’t observe ourselves in a universe with observers is not possible). However, physicist Roger Penrose in 2004 calculated that in the species of the multiverse, like modern physicists is based on inflationary cosmology and string theory – each observer that watches smooth and old universe, which is as big as ours, there will be a 1010123 observers who see a smooth, old universe 10 times less. And yet, the most common type of observer will “Boltzmanngasse brain”: a functioning brain, which by chance originated in a disordered universe for a short period of time. If Penrose is right, the chances that the observer in the theory of multiple universe will find themselves in a giant well-ordered universe, is astronomically small. And hence the fact that we ourselves are such observers, tells against the theory of the multiverse.

But none of this is irrefutable argument. Theists might try to give the reasons why God allows suffering to happen that we find in the Universe, and the multiverse theorists may try to adjust his theory so that our universe will have more chances of appearing. But all this wandering around it rather attempts to save the theory. Perhaps there is another way.

In the public mind as fully as possible physicists are trying to explain the nature of space, time and matter. Of course, we are close to that chosen; for example, our best theory of the very large – General relativity – are incompatible with our best theories of the very small – quantum mechanics. But it would be strange to assume that we will never overcome these obstacles and physics will not be able to proudly present a General unified theory of everything: the full story of the fundamental nature of the Universe.

In fact, physicists don’t say anything about the nature of the physical Universe. Consider the theory of universal gravitation of Newton:

Variables m1 and m2 denote the masses of the two objects between which we want to gravity; F is the gravitational attraction between two masses, G is the gravitational constant (a number which we know from observations); r – the distance between m1 and m2. Note that this equation does not give us a definition of what “mass”, “force” and “distance”. And this applies not only to Newton’s law. The subject of physics is the basic properties of the world of physics: mass, charge, spin, distance, power. But the equations of physics do not explain these properties. They just call them to place them in the equations.

If physics tells us anything about the nature of physical properties, then what he says? The truth is that physics is a tool for prediction. Even if we don’t know what “mass” and “force”, we can recognize them in the world. They appear as readings on our instruments or have an impact on our senses. And using the equations of physics, like the Newtonian law of gravitation, we can predict what will happen with great accuracy. It is this predictive ability has allowed us unusually to manipulate the natural world, led to a technological revolution that has changed our planet. We live in a time that people are so stunned by the success of physics that tend to believe that physical and mathematical models have captured the whole of reality. But physics this is not necessary. Physics is a tool for predicting the behavior of matter, not disclosing its inner nature.

Given that physics tells us nothing about the nature of physical reality, then what he says? What do we know about what is happening “under the hood” of the engine of the Universe? The English astronomer Arthur Eddington was the first scientist who proved the General theory of relativity, and formulated the problem of the brain, discussed above (albeit in a different context). Thinking about the limitations of physics in “the Nature of the physical world” (1928), Eddington argued that the only thing we really know about the nature of matter is that part of it is conscious; we know because we are directly aware of the consciousness of their own brains.

“We know the external world because its fibers penetrate into our own minds; and our only the ends of these threads do we really known; from those ends we more or less success to restore the rest, as a paleontologist reconstructs an extinct monster in his tracks.”

We do not have direct access to the nature of matter outside of the brain. But the most reasonable assumption, according to Eddington, is that the nature of the matter outside of the brain is inseparable from matter inside the brain. Given that we have no direct understanding of the nature of the atoms is quite “stupid”, according to Eddington, to say that the nature of atoms does not contain mentality and then wonder where this mentality comes from. In his book “Consciousness and fundamental reality” (2017) Philip Goff, Professor of philosophy, Institute of Central Europe in Budapest, developed these reflections in an extended argument panpsychism: the view that all matter has a conscious nature.

There are two ways of development of the basic positions of panpsychist. One is micropechis when the mind is at the smallest particles of the physical world. Micropechis should not be taken as absurd, in which quarks are emotions or electrons feel anger. The human mind is a complex thing, involving subtle and complex emotions, mental and sensual experience. But there is nothing that would prohibit the manifestation of consciousness in extremely simple forms. We tend to believe that conscious experience of the horse much easier our experience chicken much easier experience of the horse. The simpler the organisms become, the less they develop consciousness at some point; in the simplest organisms do not have any conscious experience. But perhaps the light of consciousness is never switched off, but rather fades in the reduction of organic complexity, from flies and plants to amoebas and bacteria. For microplast this fading but never goes off the continuum and inorganic matter in the fundamental physical entities – probably electrons and quarks – have rudimentary forms of consciousness, reflecting their extremely simple nature.

Some scientists and philosophers from the world of science recently concluded that this kind of picture of the Universe, “bottom-up” approach is outdated, as modern physics says that we live in a “top-down” or holistic Universe, in which a complex whole is more fundamental than its parts. According to holism, the table in front of you there is not because the subatomic particles that compose it; on the contrary, these subatomic particles exist because of the table. In the end, all things exist because of the ultimate complex system: the Universe as a whole.

Holism is associated with mysticism in his commitment to a unified whole, the ultimate reality. But in its favor are compelling scientific arguments. American philosopher Jonathan Schaffer argues that the phenomenon of quantum entanglement is a great proof of holism. Entangled particles behave as one even if separated by such large distances that they cannot transmit a fast signal. According to Schaffer, we can understand this only if they are in the Universe where complex systems more fundamental than their parts.

If you combine holism with panpsychism, we get cosmopsis: a picture in which the universe is conscious, and the consciousness of the people and animals does not derive from the consciousness of fundamental particles, and the consciousness of the Universe itself.

Cosmoplast not need to think about a conscious Universe with the human traits of consciousness kind of thinking and rationality. No, the cosmic consciousness should be viewed as a “hodgepodge”, lacking the intelligence or judgment, says Goff. He also admits that the fact that “fine-tuning” may give us grounds for thinking that intelligent life of the Universe may be closer than previously thought, intelligent life of the human being.

The canadian philosopher John Leslie has offered a curious explanation for the fine-tuning that it’s in the book “Universes” (1989) called “acciarito”. Fine tuning affects us because all values which were constants in our laws, exactly such as are necessary for something valuable: life, and then finally intelligent life. If the laws were not finely tuned, the universe would have infinitely less value; one could say, she would do her had. Leslie admits that this understanding of the problem points us in the direction of the best solution: the finely tuned laws, because their existence allows you to exist something very valuable. Leslie is not trying to represent the deity who is torn between values and cosmological facts; the fact of the value as it takes and adjusts the exact value.

It is difficult to deny that exercism is a boring explanation of fine-tuning, since it does not require the existence of any entity, except for the observable Universe. But not quite obvious connection. Values do not seem to be suitable agents for creating a causal effect on the world, in any case, regardless of the motive of rational agents. This is to assume that abstract the digit 9 was the cause of the hurricane.

But cosmoplast there is a way to make exercism clear, assuming that the mental abilities of the Universe were intermediaries between value facts and cosmological facts. From this point of view, which we can call “agentive cosmopsis”, the universe itself is finely tuned laws in accordance with the considerations about the value. When did this happen? In the first 10-43 seconds is known as Planck epoch. Cosmoplast can assume that at this early stage of the cosmological history of the universe “chose” fine-grained values to make possible valuable the universe.

To understand this we’ll need two modifications of the basic cosmopsis. First, we must assume that the universe has a basic ability to recognize and respond to considerations of value. This is quite different from what we used to know about things, but it fit with what we observe. The Scottish philosopher David Hume had noticed that everything we can observe is basically just the behavior of things – the strength of which derives it’s behavior is invisible to us. We routinely believe that the Universe is controlled by the number of the irrational cause-effect chains, but it is also possible that the blame for the ability of the Universe to respond to considerations of value.

How to rethink the laws of physics from this point of view? Goff believes that we see the limitations of the Agency Universe. Unlike the God in theism is an agent with limited power, which explains the apparent imperfection of the Universe. The universe operates with a goal of maximizing value, but may do so only within the constraints of the laws of physics. Charity of the Universe in our day almost invisible; agentury cosmoplast could explain this by the fact that the universe today is more limited than it was in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang, when the now known laws of physics did not apply.

Occam’s razor – the principle that ceteris paribus the preference for more moderate theories – in this case, is observed. But it would be restrained to ascribe to the fundamental consciousness of the Universe? Not at all. The physical world must have a certain nature, and physics tells us nothing about the nature. But to assume that the Universe has a conscious nature, and not unconscious, is not very correct from a position of Occam’s razor. The first sentence can be considered more restrained, because it continues the only thing we know about the nature of matter: the brain is consciousness.

The second and final modification that we must apply to cosmopsis to explain fine-tuning, requires some costs. If the universe during the Planck era of the finely tuned laws so that through billions of years in the future, there was life, the universe needs some way to understand the consequences of their actions. This is the second modification of Goff: he suggests that agentury cosmopsis have to assume that during the base visit, the universe is full of potential consequences of all possible actions. And still it can’t surpass the audacity of the alternative theories. The theist postulates the existence of a supernatural agent, and agentively cosmoplast postulates the existence of natural (natural) agent. Theorist of multiple universes posits a huge number of unobservable individual entities: multiple universes. Agentury cosmoplast just adds its own being, that we have the opportunity to observe: the physical Universe. Equally important, agentury cosmoplast avoids false predictions that make the other two alternative.

The idea that the universe is a consciousness, operating in response to the rating values, gives us an extravagant picture. But let’s judge a theory not by cultural associations and by the force of the explanation. Goff believes that his agentury cosmopsis explains fine-tuning without false predictions, and does so simply and elegantly.

According to the materials of Aeon

One Comment on “Could the Universe be conscious?”

  1. Hi there, I discovered your web site via Google while searching for a similar matter, your web site got here up, it looks good I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookmarks

  2. Thank you, I have been looking for information about this subject for ages and yours is the best I’ve located so far

  3. Undeniably believe that which you stated Your favorite justification appeared to
    be on the net the simplest thing to be aware of
    I say to you, I certainly get annoyed while people consider worries that
    they just don’t know about You managed to hit the nail upon the top
    as well as defined out the whole thing without having side effects , people can take a signal
    Will probably be back to get more Thanks

  4. When some one searches for his vital thing, so he she desires to be available that in detail, therefore that thing is maintained over here

  5. Neat blog! Is your theme custom made or did you download it from somewhere?

    A design like yours with a few simple tweeks would really make my blog shine
    Please let me know where you got your theme

    Many thanks

  6. jerryolivelpc pdflivre gratuit-3-378-faites_votre_180_vous_avez_tout_essay%C3%A9_et_si_vous_tentiez_l_inverse_ html Grade The Free

  7. hello!,I like your writing very so much! proportion we communicate more approximately your article on AOL? I require an expert on this space to solve my problem May be that is you! Taking a look forward to look you

  8. Your style is really unique compared to other folks I have read stuff from Thanks for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I will just bookmark this site

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *