Cosmology Design inference Intelligent Design

Preprint paper by Nobel Prize winner on mind-like processes underlying the order in nature

Spread the love

At ResearchGate:

Abstract: David Bohm suggested that some kind of implicate order underlies the manifest order observed in physical systems, while others have suggested that some kind of mind-like process underlies this order. In the following a more explicit picture is proposed, based on the existence of parallels between spontaneously fluctuating equilibrium states and life processes. Focus on the processes of natural language suggests a picture involving an evolving ensemble of experts, each with its own goals but nevertheless acting in harmony with each other. The details of how such an ensemble might function and evolve can translate into aspects of the world of fundamental physics such as symmetry and symmetry breaking, and can be expected to be the source of explicit models. This picture differs from that of regular physics in that goal-directedness has an important role to play, contrasting with that of the conventional view which implies a meaningless universe.

Josephson, Brian. (2021). Beyond the ‘theory of everything’ paradigm: synergetic patterns and the order of the natural world. 10.13140/RG.2.2.28064.71684.

Josephson won the Nobel in 1973, along with another physicist, for “for his theoretical predictions of the properties of a supercurrent through a tunnel barrier, in particular those phenomena which are generally known as the Josephson effects.”

This would be a great paper to discuss, especially when it is officially published.

6 Replies to “Preprint paper by Nobel Prize winner on mind-like processes underlying the order in nature

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    As to: ,,, “the conventional view which implies a meaningless universe.”

    But if we actually lived in a truly ‘meaningless universe’, as is the ‘conventional view’, how in blue blazes would science even be possible for us in the first place?

    Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007
    Excerpt: Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.
    Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11.....avies.html

    “If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
    – C. S. Lewis

  2. 2
    Origenes on vacation says:

    Stephenson: “There is a similarity between the organisation discussed in coordination dynamics and that of computer software, in that both involve collections of functional units working in harmony with each other. But in the case of computer software, the programmer’s investigations are the source of the software. Can the organisation of life be explained in the same way?

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/1

    As to: ,,, “the conventional view which implies a meaningless universe.”

    But if we actually lived in a truly ‘meaningless universe’, as is the ‘conventional view’, how in blue blazes would science even be possible for us in the first place?

    We live in an ordered Universe or we wouldn’t be here to ask the question. Why shouldn’t science be possible for us?

  4. 4
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Sev

    Why shouldn’t science be possible for us?

    Because order produces “that which is ordered”. When something is ordered, that presupposes purpose. Blind, unintelligence does not produce that which is ordered – so if materialism was true, then science shouldn’t be possible.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev: “We live in an ordered Universe”

    Yet, according to no less than Einstein himself, finding ourselves to be living in such an ‘ordered universe’ is to be considered, in and of itself, a miracle.

    So Seversky do you now believe in miracles? But I thought you were an atheist?

    On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952
    Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
    There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.”
    -Albert Einstein
    http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine

  6. 6
    Belfast says:

    Seversky, read around a bit more – that old groaner isn’t used by the up to date atheists any more.

Leave a Reply