Even as idle speculation, I'm not sure why the idea of a thinking or intelligent universe would be appealing. One ironic consequence is that the notion of human rights becomes meaningless - just as, within our own bodies, individual cells don't have rights. If we're all part of a larger thinking entity, then we essentially exist in its service. And if it turns out, for example, that all of Earth's inhabitants need to pass from the scene so that the universe could be 'healthier,' then so be it.
But as you say, this is not a biologically informed concept - and I'm not sure exactly what it's supposed to be!
Didn’t the Stoics hold in a sense that the universe “thinks”? Maybe an overly simplistic view of Stoic physics... but I don’t see that it would be anti-rights necessarily.
Doesn’t make it any more plausible or scientifically grounded though
I suppose my thinking here was that if the universe itself could think (and was thus conscious in a sense), then we humans might have the same status in relation to the universe as individual cells do in our own bodies. That is, we're expendable. So just as cells can be ‘programmed’ for selective death (apoptosis) to benefit the organism, our own interests wouldn’t matter much because what really ‘counts’ is what’s good for the universe as a whole.
But, as Massimo originally said, the very idea of a thinking universe strains credibility from the start, so perhaps it doesn’t pay to speculate too much about what the implications would be!
Seth, I agree. In fact, the cell-to-body relationship you describe is very similar to the foot-to-body analogy used by Epictetus. As he says, if the foot has to step into the mud so that the body gets home then not only the foot ought to do it (duty) but should be glad of it (amor fati).
So anything I want to believe, as long as it hasn't been proved impossible, can be slapped with the "scientifically possible" label and trotted out as something people should seriously consider? Well I guess have to start worrying about Cthulhu now because it's not scientifically impossible that an elder god sleeps in a sunken city in an unexplored part of the ocean and will someday awaken and devour us all. Maybe the universe telepathically sent messages to Lovecraft who just thought he was thinking this stuff up on his own? I mean it's not unscientific now, is it?
Your first sentence is exactly the criticism that she routinely debunks as theorists publish mountains of papers based not on concepts that solve a problem, but on things that mathematics allows. All well and good, glad you got your mathematical noodling into a journal, but did you solve any problem in nature? Almost always, the answer is no. So far, we haven't found anything at known energies that contradicts the Standard Model. The latest headlines in cosmology and particle physics that are usually posed as questions, the answer to which is usually, I don't know, and it looks like you don't either.
Not saying this is the case here, but the jaded part of me recognizes there is a huge market for woo woo and when you compare the net worth of Deepak Chopra to the average physicist or philosopher, and the conceptual basis for most woo woo is an intelligent caring universe, well...
Even as idle speculation, I'm not sure why the idea of a thinking or intelligent universe would be appealing. One ironic consequence is that the notion of human rights becomes meaningless - just as, within our own bodies, individual cells don't have rights. If we're all part of a larger thinking entity, then we essentially exist in its service. And if it turns out, for example, that all of Earth's inhabitants need to pass from the scene so that the universe could be 'healthier,' then so be it.
But as you say, this is not a biologically informed concept - and I'm not sure exactly what it's supposed to be!
Seth, good point about human, or any other, rights. Didn’t think of that angle.
Didn’t the Stoics hold in a sense that the universe “thinks”? Maybe an overly simplistic view of Stoic physics... but I don’t see that it would be anti-rights necessarily.
Doesn’t make it any more plausible or scientifically grounded though
I suppose my thinking here was that if the universe itself could think (and was thus conscious in a sense), then we humans might have the same status in relation to the universe as individual cells do in our own bodies. That is, we're expendable. So just as cells can be ‘programmed’ for selective death (apoptosis) to benefit the organism, our own interests wouldn’t matter much because what really ‘counts’ is what’s good for the universe as a whole.
But, as Massimo originally said, the very idea of a thinking universe strains credibility from the start, so perhaps it doesn’t pay to speculate too much about what the implications would be!
Seth, I agree. In fact, the cell-to-body relationship you describe is very similar to the foot-to-body analogy used by Epictetus. As he says, if the foot has to step into the mud so that the body gets home then not only the foot ought to do it (duty) but should be glad of it (amor fati).
Jeffrey, yes the Stoics did believe in a thinking universe. It would be nice, but I can’t follow them there.
Oh for sure! I just meant that there could still be a sense of human rights under such a model. It doesn’t make it real though :-)
Indeed!
So anything I want to believe, as long as it hasn't been proved impossible, can be slapped with the "scientifically possible" label and trotted out as something people should seriously consider? Well I guess have to start worrying about Cthulhu now because it's not scientifically impossible that an elder god sleeps in a sunken city in an unexplored part of the ocean and will someday awaken and devour us all. Maybe the universe telepathically sent messages to Lovecraft who just thought he was thinking this stuff up on his own? I mean it's not unscientific now, is it?
Your first sentence is exactly the criticism that she routinely debunks as theorists publish mountains of papers based not on concepts that solve a problem, but on things that mathematics allows. All well and good, glad you got your mathematical noodling into a journal, but did you solve any problem in nature? Almost always, the answer is no. So far, we haven't found anything at known energies that contradicts the Standard Model. The latest headlines in cosmology and particle physics that are usually posed as questions, the answer to which is usually, I don't know, and it looks like you don't either.
Andrew, exactly. I was really surprised by this turn on Sabine’s part. She usually goes after this kind of stuff with gusto.
Not saying this is the case here, but the jaded part of me recognizes there is a huge market for woo woo and when you compare the net worth of Deepak Chopra to the average physicist or philosopher, and the conceptual basis for most woo woo is an intelligent caring universe, well...
Andrew, the thought has occurred to me as well. But I have no reason to doubt Sabine’s integrity.
Reminds of the lame-ish joke:
Rene Descartes goes into a bar. Barkeep asks him if he wants a drink.
Descartes says, "I think not."
And poof, he disappears.
😆