Levels: What we
know: consciousness;
intuit deeply: meaning, purpose, moral responsibility;
live our lives as though exists but are not intellectually sure it does: true free will.
................................................
What we know not just believe or speculate:
the brain is the most spohisticated structure we know of in the universe
consciousness is the most fundamental phenomenon and it exists associated to the human brain;
the universe exists, and presumably either always existed or exists only a finite time - either way it is in some sense 'uncaused'.
The quantum measurement problem
the human brain is capable of speculating about the universe as a whole and its emergence into existence and even to make verifiable prediciton (re the big bang, inflation etc)
We'll discuss these and then offer speculations based on the above knowns, regarding that which we intuit rather than know, mainly regarding:
free will, and re acausal or self-causative-type mechanisms or phenomena which may exist within the universe or as part of its 'natural' processes.
meaning, purpose, moral repsonbiibility, human significance.
........................
I can say "I can imagine a universe devoid of consciousness", but of course it is I a conscious being imagining it, so it is not that the universe wihtout consciousness can exist on its own, it can exist as a concept in the moind of a consciousn being. And it is only my feeling that "I can imagine it" but that says not much, basically it is equivalent to the statment "my brain/mind is in the state of feeling that it is imagining a universe without consciousness" - certainly that is not a proof that it could indeed exist.
The truth is that it is difficult for me to truly understand even what it would mean that something exists if there is no conscious awareness of that entity's existence or perhaps of the ramifications of its existence.
So it is consciousness which 'gives existence' to all non-conscious entities/phenomena. Conciousness is also that which quintessentially 'knows itself' (literally self-referential) and this means therefore that it is in some sense self-causing or self-existent.
We'll soon examine another aspect or phenomenon related to consciousness, or a property of consciousness - free will - which is quintessentially a vehicle for 'self-causation' in the sense that it chooses options wihtout the choice being cause by prior events in the usual way.
...
A question arises as to the origin of consciousness: if humans evolved, then we must suppose that conciousness evolved. However, how could matter give rise via a physical mechanism such as evolution to a qualitatively different phenomenon[6][6]?
One answer would be that consciousness was inherent in the universe at its origin and this enabled the human brain to attain consciousness at some point in its evolution (for example, perhaps when the brain achieved a certain complexity it connected to the consciousness inherent in the universe). Another answer would suppose that consciouness was not present always, but rather it somehow 'emerged', somehow arose without precedent, basically in a non-causal manner, just as the universe itself exists acausally.
Can science and logic truly model our reality? Despite the physical absurdity of a Platonic-Ideal type of absolute Morality, there is some indication that our reality is not fundamentally describable by logic and physics. Consciousness incontrovertibly exists, and it is self-evidently non-physical (except to materialists, perhaps since they do not possess conscious awareness), and so it is quite clear that physical theory cannot account for the most fundamental aspect of existence. And the same for the ‘flow of time’ we experience - it is not accounted for by physics, not even by the pre-eminent theory of spacetime, Einstein’s theory of general relativity. And perhaps we should add to the list of indications of the inadequacy of natural law to account for reality the fact that we observe only one actuality rather than the multiplicity - superposition states - predicted by quantum physics.
Acausality’s inescapability: Would it be correct to say that the universe did not always exist? Somehow such phrasing seems to imply that there was a time when it didn't exist, which is of course not true scientifically in that in the scientific context time does not exist separately from that of the universe. Can one say that the universe 'emerged into existence'? Again this phraseology can be problematic if it is taken as implying that there was time 'before' the universe, since emergence implies a process which is not instantaneous, and even 'instantaneous' can imply the existence of time. The only scientifically rigorous statement is more like "the universe exists only a finite amount of time". Nevertheless we wish to go beyond this and postulate that in some sense there is something 'acausal' in the very fact of the existence of an entity which is not eternal. And as a result we will indeed refer to the universe's 'emergence into existence' .
Acausality’s possible reflection in our minds: Physics has shown in several remarkable ways that our brains - small organs operating on the surface of a seemingly obscure planet in a random corner of some nondescript galaxy - can intuit and deduce laws applicable to the universe as a whole. Indeed the development of the universe from its original state is relatively well-understood now. However, the very emergence of the universe into existence seems rather mysterious given the obvious limitations in applying the concept of cause and effect in this context. Thus there is something of a conundrum involved - without cause and effect there would seem to be no law and no science, and yet we can intuit why the emergence of the universe itself involves an acausality.
What irony that cause and effect, which underlies all aspects of the universe’s operation, must be violated in order for the universe to emerge into existence. Can it be that our universe has no vestige of this acauasality? Or perhaps some element of cause-effect violation – what I here am terming ‘acausality’ – does indeed exist somewhere in the universe?
..
What is here proposed is that some of this very acausality is associated to that small organ which has formulated these conceptions of causality, of laws of nature. An organ whose neural inter-conectedness confers on it a complexity perhaps greater than that of any known entity in the physical universe, including large structures such as galaxies and galactic clusters, and therefore perhaps uniquely appropriate as bearer of this distinctive feature.
Indeed it has been proposed that our mind (our awareness or consciousness) is the bridge between the universe as it is described by the mathematics of theoretical quantum physics – a superposition of many states, including multiple simultaneous states of our brain - and the reality that our minds perceive, a specific unique state of brain and mind. We also know that our very fundamental awareness of the passage of time is not encompassed in the understanding if the universe as described in theoretical physics – where general (and special) relativity present a universe of spacetime as a whole, without the passage of time being involved. And so it is our minds rather than our brains which are involved. Our minds, our awareness, is somehow associated to the small organ mentioned earlier, and this is somewhat mysterious as Descartes pointed out. And it is our minds rather than our brain which is the root of all the mysteries we mentioned – of time-passage, of the collapse of the multiplicity of states into one.
Acausality & Free Will
1) Big bang theory proposes that the universe's age is finite, and if it did not always exist one imagines the universe as having somehow "emerged into being", however such an emergence from "non-existence of anything" is necessarily 'acausal'. If indeed the universe's very existence relies on 'acausality', we propose that such acausality is actually a fundamental feature in the universe's continued existence and its operation, so that causality is NOT the dominant paradigm.
Speculation based on what we know: This inherent acausality may provide the essential ingredient for 'true free will' (which under the causality paradigm is logically and physically impossible).
2) Speculation based on what we know: This inherent acausality may enable a resolution of quantum physics' measurement problem. The "measurement-problem' is only a problem for conscious observers,and it is fitting that some consciousness-related higher-level phenomenon provide the resolution, and indeed free will is the quintessential 'choice' mechanism, and is exactly fitting as the consciousness-based quantum-transcendent phenomenon which could 'choose' between possibilities.
3) The very fact that consciousness exists affects the argument for the possible existence of free will. The main argument against free will is that it is impossible as considered logically. Consciousness is not material and is the most fundamental aspect of reality. It is therefore not convincing to use logic and laws of nature designed form and for the material universe to argue against possibilities which seem intuitive to consciousness.
Also, consciousness though the most fundamental aspect of reality can have no effect on the material universe - which is only a collection of sensations in consciousness - and this is a conundrum to those who possess consciousness, and is part of the core of the mind-body problem as pointed out by Descartes, and so it is natural to conceive of free will, which provides exactly this missing element.
4) For many of us, our deepest conviction is not causality or laws of nature, but rather the ethical imperative, the existence of an 'ought', the notion of 'morality'. For this notion to have its full meaning, there needs to be free will. For many people, the degree to which this is compelling overules the degree to which they are convinced by the arguments presented earlier against free will.
Einstein believed in a cosmic Mind of sorts, but also believed so deeply in determinism, and in fairness, that he felt it was impossible for there to be a God who judged beings it created since those beings' actions are determined not free. This indicates the depth of his belief that the notion of 'fairness' or 'morality' is not merely rooted in a human brain, a matter of evolutionary sociobiology, but rather is a Truth, a cosmic principle, which enables one to rule out other cosmological aspects which contradict it. For many people, this very notion of fairness and morality implies also the existence of a free will which makes it possible to have 'moral responsibility' for one's actions.
[One can of course speculate that Einstein might have reconsidered his attitude to free will had he become fully comfortable with the non-deterministic implications of quantum physics (which was after all partly his own creation).]
Despite the apparent illogicality of a true free will and the physical absurdity of a Platonic-Ideal type of absolute Morality, there is some indication that our reality is not fundamentally describable by logic and physics.
Measurent problem: solution is free will
, and of the acausality underlying free will.
Our minds – but perhaps not our brains, though these somehow support the mind - have thus an element of the acausality required to support freedom of choice, and we perceive events in a time-order of past leading to present, so that we can actively choose the actualization of the future through our choices, rather than having all of space and time presented as a fait accompli as described in the physics appropriate to – and originated by - our brains. Our deep conviction of the existence of moral responsibility, and therefore of our minds’ ability to choose, our deep intuition that indeed we posses a free will, is thus also a pointer to fundamental aspects of our physical and cosmological reality.
...
Perhaps one can incorporate into a physical-type philosophical cosmology model a lesson from a fundamental flaw in the 'argument form design' supposed proof of the existence of God, plus insight gained from an actual mathematical-cosmological model.
The alleged proof of God supposes that a universe as complex as ours, or even with simple ordinary objects (which actually exist only due to very sophisticated laws of nature) could not arise by chance and requires a designer-creator. However, the flaw in this logic is that the designer/creator is far more complex than the created entity (the universe) and so how did it emerge into existence? The answer usually given is that this creator can exist without a cause due to its special characteristics, however one has thereby simply replaced the problem of how a complex entity (the universe) emerges/exists on its own with a yet tougher question of how an even-more complex entity (the designer/creator) can exist without a cause - and if a being that complex could exist for some reason without being caused, then why not simply ascribe that property to the universe itself, thus 'cutting out the middleman' and satisfying Occam?.
Research with a colleague (see "Hedgehog" paper) led to our being able to show mathematically how a universe could emerge despite an energy barrier without quantum tunneling, by exploiting the features of a unique source-type which if present in the initial stage changed the space-time characteristics in the requisite manner to allow for a transition to full existence. Perhaps one can provide a philosophical model for the universe's emergence into existence - or to answer the question "why does something exist rather than nothing" - by ... one can similarly incorporate based on complexity.....a self-causing universe inherently maximizing complexity and sophistication.
When analyzed from within, where time passes, it has characteristics that are 'teleological', but actually the essential algorithmic guidance is a law of "maximizing complexity & sophisticaiton'.
Wheeler's provocative diagram: .... Similarly, here we propose that whatever can in theory exist at least for an instant does so in some proto-level, and all quantum possiblities are expressed at a semi-existent level of potentia, and only one is selected out to fully exist, with the algorithmic ingredient/requirment being that it possessses at some time in the future maximal(/sufficient?) complexity/sophistication.
The features which enable existence are also manifest in the existent universe, in other words the universe contains self-causative phenomena and maximally-sophisticated/complex one, perhaps intertwined...
insert my writings re sophistication
Therefore the universe which exists will have within it consciousness, which is that which enables something to be considered existent in the philosophical sense of mind as that which knows of something's existence, and consciousness knows itself giving itself existence, so it is self-causative, and is the agent enabling a universe to exist wihtout a cause. And the universe will be the one which manifests maximal sophistication and complexity, leading for example to the choice of a universe with laws of nature leading naturally to the emergence of yet-more complex structures, such as occurs in various processes including of course the emergence of 'living entities', and of the most complexly-interconnected entities so far known in our universe, the human brain, which then associates to the pre-existent 'consciousness'. This consciousness then perhaps operates in an intelligent self-causative manner, ie with "incompatibilist libertarian free will with agent-causation".
In any case, evolution is somewhat directed in the sens ethat the eventual possibility of highly complex organizsms, and indeed of a brian associated to consciousnes, itself selcts out this develomental path, actuaitng it, so that would be the reason why evoution can result in such sophisticaiton without any seeming guigin hand.
What we know not just believe or speculate:
the brain is the most spohisticated structure we know of in the universe
consciousness is the most fundamental phenomenon and it exists associated to the human brain
the human brain is capable of speculating about the universe a sa whoiole and its wemergence into existence and even to make verifiable prediciton (re the big bang, inflation etc)
the above are what we KNOW.
So we need not feel constarined to minimize the role of consciousness....
The next level: If our depeest intuitions are regarding free will, meaning, purpose, moral responsibility, though of course these are not known only intuitied, there is nevetheless ample reason to at least take them seriously enough to endeavor to fit them in to some sort of overall model....not just keeping it all separate...albeit itwas never fruitful to mix too much, but it is different if we stik to what we KNOW (ie not fw and menaing, but yes consciousness and sophisticaiton/complexity).