Not a very deep piece, but provocative, and suggests a couple interesting reads.
Everyone should pay closer attention to control information theory. I think it will eventually be able to do some heavy lifting in regards to mind/consciousness. Either way, information to me seems more primary than energy, matter, time, and space. Understanding how it is used by living systems to formulate goals could help us understand how mind generates phenomena like meaning and being.
Information theory on black holes is where it's at. Indeed, the event horizon of black holes may be where we reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. It's a great playground for theorists.
No problem. I'm sure you'll have no problem, Corning is a great writer and explainer of difficult concepts. If you're interested in control information theory I suggest reading Part III of Holistic Darwinism.
Interesting article; thanks for sharing. There is no reason to believe that humans or human intellect are the result of some as-yet-undiscovered kind of cosmic force. Nor is there any evidence to refute that notion... well, maybe a little. Just sit tight; I'm sure it will all be explained in 3-4 more billion years. Disclaimer: I'm a scientist and will be needing to see your data before granting legitimacy to your idea.
Here's a problematic the thing: consciousness exists (which is self-evident). Here's another problematic thing: none of the current theory predicts consciousness (at least, it seems that way; we probably don't know enough about consciousness to look for it in the model). So, until we have a general theory of consciousness (which may not be possible, in principle), any theory is incomplete (so long as we admit that consciousness is a thing, Descartes and all being a given in that case).
I'm not sure that consciousness falls into a special category no matter how special we humans deem it. Indeed many in the animal kingdom show self-awareness. We're probably being laughed at by aliens who think our 'consciousness' is cute. We could apply that reasoning to virtually all of our traits. I don't think anyone would necessarily predict that we ought to be bilaterally symmetrical instead of displaying 4- or 5-axis symmetry, but here we are. To me it seems we are just accidentally where we are without much cosmic direction... or utter cosmic direction with no intention, depending on your point of view. :)
D'Arcy Thompson explored in great detail the reason that bilateral and radial symmetry seem to be the only known body plans. But anyway it's a moot point, because there's a difference between self-awareness and body plan. One is a structural element, and the other is an inherent property (I think an apt analogy would be to compare a specific molecule with the charge on an electron; one is a possibility among many, and the other just is). I don't see why it follows that there must be a grand design, plan, or purpose, if we admit that consciousness might be a property of the universe. It only implies agency, not direction.
Mind and Cosmos sounds interesting. Erm. That claim baffles me. Math isn't part of nature. Points don't exist. Numbers don't exist. You can have two tables or two chairs, but you can't have "two." That's just nonsense. If he's suggesting "there could be another universe where 2 + 2 = 1" that's equally nonsensical. 2 + 2 = 4 isn't a property of our universe. It's a property of our mathematical axioms. The axioms we use are the most common because they're the most useful. Abstractions don't exist. Also: em dashes surrounded by spaces? Nooo.Max Tegmark suggests that a different ingredient — mathematics — needs to be admitted into science as one of nature’s irreducible parts.
Max Tegmark suggests that a different ingredient — mathematics — needs to be admitted into science as one of nature’s irreducible parts.
Yes, I'm baffled by that claim, as well. I almost want to read the book only because I assume that the idea is fleshed out quite a bit more than the few sentences that are devoted here. I've always assumed that math works in models because forces between bodies are quantifiable. Mathematics are truth, because they're tautological by nature. That is, all we're doing when we do math is looking for necessary, but unobvious, relationships that must follow from our stated axioms and operators.