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.
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?
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?“
Bornagain77/1
We live in an ordered Universe or we wouldn’t be here to ask the question. Why shouldn’t science be possible for us?
Sev
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.
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?
Seversky, read around a bit more – that old groaner isn’t used by the up to date atheists any more.