Posts Tagged ‘Purpose’

On attributing the universe with purpose

August 24, 2024

Why does logic hold in our universe? What compels the laws of nature to hold everywhere? Does the universe actually have a purpose that humans can discern?

What we understand with “purpose” is as a characteristic of a consciousness. Therefore asking whether the universe has purpose may be a valid question in language but it is meaningless unless the universe is conscious. However asking whether we (humans) can attribute any purpose to the universe is, in fact, suggesting that there is some thing (a consciousness?) which has some use for the universe. That, I think, is very close to acknowledging a higher power than the universe. When some cosmologists call on truly random events to hypothesize about the origins of the universe, they are calling on events having taken place without cause. That also comes close to an appeal to divinity. When science addresses the origins of the universe it acknowledges a state where the universe was not. Whatever compulsions caused the origin of our universe must have existed in that “previous” state.  It is part of what we cannot know.

Anyway here is an interesting conversation with Gemini. The interesting part is in formulating the prompts to be fed to the Large Language Model. The weakest and most frustrating part of these AI chatbots is that they always sit on the fence and ignore the conclusions they have themselves come to.

ktwop prompt:  Why Does Logic Hold?

Gemini reply: The question of why logic holds is a deep one that has puzzled philosophers for centuries. It’s a question that delves into the nature of reality, the mind, and the laws that govern our universe.

Here are a few perspectives on why logic might hold:

  • Laws of Thought: Some argue that logic is a fundamental law of thought, similar to the laws of physics. Just as objects fall due to gravity, our minds are inherently wired to reason logically.  
    Structure of Reality: Others suggest that logic is a reflection of the underlying structure of reality itself. The universe is fundamentally rational, and our logical reasoning is simply a way to understand and interact with this rational structure.
  • Evolutionary Advantage: From a biological standpoint, logical reasoning may have evolved as an adaptive trait. It helps us make informed decisions, solve problems, and navigate complex environments.  
  • Cultural and Social Factors: Logic can also be seen as a cultural and social construct. Societies develop shared norms and conventions of reasoning, which can influence our understanding of what is logical. 

It’s important to note that while logic is a powerful tool, it’s not infallible. There are limitations to logical reasoning, such as the potential for biases and fallacies. Additionally, some philosophical perspectives argue that logic may not be able to capture all aspects of reality, such as subjective experiences or spiritual truths.  Ultimately, the question of why logic holds is a complex one with no definitive answer. It’s a topic that continues to be explored by philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists.

ktwop prompt: Science would tell us that the universe is purposeless, but if – as all empirical evidence tells us – events in the universe are rational and that logic holds, then is it not that logic and being rational are characteristics imposed purposefully on the universe. (Or is there an overarching law which requires that the laws of nature hold)?

Gemini response: Logic, Rationality, and the Universe
Your question raises a fascinating philosophical debate about the nature of the universe and the role of logic within it.

Let’s break down your points:

  • Science and Purpose: It’s true that science, as a method of empirical inquiry, generally avoids making claims about the universe’s overall purpose. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean the universe is purposeless. Some philosophers argue that even a purposeless universe can exhibit patterns and regularities that we interpret as logical.
  • Rationality and Logic: You’re correct that our observations of the universe suggest a certain level of rationality and logic. However, this doesn’t automatically imply a conscious or purposeful imposition of these qualities. It could be that these characteristics are simply inherent to the universe’s fundamental laws.
  • Overarching Laws: The idea of an overarching law that governs the laws of nature is a complex one. Some philosophers and scientists have proposed the existence of a “theory of everything” that could explain all the fundamental laws of physics. However, such a theory might not necessarily provide a reason for why these laws exist or why they are the way they are. 

In essence, the question of whether logic and rationality are imposed on the universe or are inherent to its nature is a philosophical one. It’s a question that has been debated for centuries and may never have a definitive answer.

ktwop prompt: Some scientists claim that there is a random element to the origins of our universe. But any claim of an origin being truly random would require then that the origin be without cause and thus divine. Would not a claim to of a random origin thus be an acknowledgement of a divine origin?

Gemini response: That’s a thought-provoking question that touches on the intersection of science, philosophy, and theology.

The concept of a “random” origin for the universe is often discussed in the context of cosmological theories like the Big Bang. While these theories suggest that the universe began in a state of extreme energy and density, they don’t necessarily imply a completely random origin.

Here are a few points to consider:

Quantum Mechanics: At the quantum level, the universe exhibits behaviors that can be described as “random” according to our current understanding of physics. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that these events are truly without cause. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics suggest that there may be underlying factors or hidden variables that we can’t yet observe.
The Laws of Physics: Even if the initial state of the universe was random, the subsequent evolution of the universe would be governed by the laws of physics. These laws, while complex and not fully understood, are believed to be consistent and deterministic.
Divine Intervention: The idea of a “divine” origin is a theological concept that goes beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. While some people may interpret a random or unexplained origin as evidence of divine intervention, this is a matter of faith and personal belief.
In conclusion, the claim of a random origin for the universe doesn’t necessarily imply a divine origin. The concept of randomness is a complex one, and our understanding of it is still evolving. Ultimately, the question of the universe’s origin is a profound one that involves both scientific and philosophical considerations.

Returning to the questions we began with:

  • Why does logic hold in our universe?
  • What compels the laws of nature to hold everywhere?
  • Does the universe actually have a purpose that humans can discern?

There are things we know and knowable things we do not yet know.

But we are human and finite human beings have limitations.

And there are unknowable things we cannot ever know. 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Language, Philosophy | Comments Off on On attributing the universe with purpose

Simplicity helps parsimony, but can complexity exist without purpose?

November 8, 2022

Why complexity?

We admire simplicity but are awed by complexity which achieves some particular purpose. In our universe we are surrounded by complexity. However, for any required level of complexity, we give great value to being as simple as possible. When two hydrogen atoms refuse to remain simply single, but pair to give a hydrogen molecule we have complexity. The apparent purpose is stability – a balance. Helium atoms, of course, are confirmed, stable bachelors. Complexity – it seems – always has purpose. Without a purpose complexity is pointless. Could it be that purpose is necessary for complexity? Can there be purpose without consciousness? Do the laws of nature have purpose? Whose purpose then?

Does the universe even care?

It is not a law of nature but the principle of parsimony (also called Ockham’s or Occam’s Razor) holds that of many possible explanations, the simplest, least energy-intensive explanation having the fewest assumptions, is most likely the correct one. William of Ockham (c.  1287–1347) advocated that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions. The term razor refers to distinguishing between two hypotheses by successively “shaving away” unnecessary assumptions. Isaac Newton wrote, “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances”. But the parsimony principle had been expressed even in antiquity. Long before Newton, Ptolemy (c. AD 90 – c. 168) stated, “We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible.” In short, parsimony is about only what is necessary and no more than is sufficient.

Parsimony and simplicity and an absence of superfluity is given much value in many fields. Parsimony lies at the heart of minimalism in all fields. I associate parsimony with simplicity and simplicity with elegance. In language, I perceive elegance to lie in using as few words as are necessary and sufficient to convey a precise meaning. In philosophy and science, elegance lies in having as few assumptions as possible. Elegance in engineering constructs lies in using as few components as possible, consuming as little energy as possible, and in expending as little effort as feasible, to achieve a given function. As an engineering student, I learned to appreciate simplicity in complexity. My maths professor instilled in me the elegance associated with simplicity. With the study of machines and constructions I was fascinated by how creativity and purpose converted simple things to complex things. Elegance in engineering arose from having the greatest simplicity for any required complexity. It is not surprising therefore that I tend to see simplicity not only as a ground state of existence but also as the source of elegance.

(A word about entropy. From my thermodynamics professor I was introduced to entropy as the measure of that enthalpy that could not usefully produce work – the 2nd Law – and came to understand it as a quantification of the distance from equilibrium of an isolated system. The closer to equilibrium the less the work that can be extracted and the greater the entropy. Higher temperatures are thus further removed from equilibrium than lower temperatures. The heat death of the universe as an isolated system then represents that final equilibrium when nothing more can change and entropy will be at the highest level possible for our universe. I always felt it would have been easier to teach entropy from the end-state of final equilibrium as having the lowest negentropy. Any increase in complexity moves any system further away from the final equilibrium and is generally an indicator of lower, local entropy. However, my logic seems to become circular when attempting to relate simplicity and complexity in terms of entropy and I leave that for some later post).

Complexity is the attribute of a whole thing made up of interacting parts. The parts must be interacting for an assembly of parts to gain complexity. Any part of a whole, by definition, is a simpler thing than the whole thing, but may itself be complex and exhibit complexity in its own right. Whereas simple has many meanings (innocent, modest, humble, stupid, naive, fundamental, uncomplicated, ..), simplicity, in this context as opposed to complexity, is the quality of things having as few interacting parts as are necessary and sufficient. The simplest things of all have no component parts and are indivisible. In the material world, the ancients considered the simplest, fundamental elements, making up all matter, to be indivisible (earth, fire, water, air, aether). The Greeks developed this into the notion of fundamental atoms of matter. Nowadays we have the Standard Model where all matter is composed of 17 elementary particles. But most of these elementary particles cannot exist in isolation. Many, it is thought, only existed in the first few seconds after the Big Bang. For some reason or other (let us call it purpose) they assemble and interact in complex ways to create the matter and energy we more readily perceive.

The Conversation

There are two types of fundamental particles: matter particles, some of which combine to produce the world about us, and force particles – one of which, the photon, is responsible for electromagnetic radiation. These are classified in the standard model of particle physics, which theorises how the basic building blocks of matter interact, governed by fundamental forces. Matter particles are fermions while force particles are bosons.

Matter particles are split into two groups: quarks and leptons – there are six of these, each with a corresponding partner. Leptons are divided into three pairs. Each pair has an elementary particle with a charge and one with no charge – one that is much lighter and extremely difficult to detect. The lightest of these pairs is the electron and electron-neutrino. The other two neutrino pairs (called muon and muon neutrino, tau and tau neutrino) appear to be just heavier versions of the electron. The six quarks are also split into three pairs with whimsical names: “up” with “down”, “charm” with “strange”, and “top” with “bottom” (previously called “truth” and “beauty” though regrettably changed). The up and down quarks stick together to form the protons and neutrons which lie at the heart of every atom. Again only the lightest pair of quarks are found in normal matter, the charm/strange and top/bottom pairs seem to play no role in the universe as it now exists, but, like the heavier leptons, played a role in the early moments of the universe and helped to create one that is amenable to our existence. .. There are six force particles in the standard model, which create the interactions between matter particles. …. The Higgs boson is the final particle which completes the roll call of particles in what is referred as the standard model of particle physics so far described.

We look for the simplest possible explanations even though the physical universe around us is far from simple. But why does the universe create complexity from simple things? Physics tells us that we cannot find smaller, more elementary particles than those in the Standard Model. (I have some reservations about how elementary particles which have no independent existence can be taken as being elementary – but that is another story). But physics also tells us that most of these elementary particles only exist together with other particles, where the coming together always resolves some apparent imbalance in force or energy or charge. If the fundamental particles were truly fundamental, it should surely be simpler for them to remain as fundamental particles rather than combine in complex ways to create matter. Why do atoms combine to produce elemental molecules if not forced to? Why would simple molecules choose to create complex molecules? If nothing else, seeking a balance of some kind appears to be the purpose. But why should the universe abhor imbalance and have the achieving of balance as a purpose? What were the imbalances which led to the complexity exhibited by organic molecules? And why would complex, inanimate molecules get together in just the right, but highly unlikely, configurations to create life? And what was the purpose for simple life to increase in complexity when it would have been so much easier to remain simple?

We observe complexity not only in the world of matter and energy, but also in the immaterial, abstract world. Simple thoughts become complex thoughts and simple emotions become complex ones. Simple ideas accumulate and interact with others creating vastly complex ideas. But here, we have no practical, quantitative way of distinguishing the complex from the simple and resort to language to express qualitative differences. (We cannot say, for example, that an atom of anger and two of jealousy give a molecule of rage). Our reason tells us that complex things are built up from simple things. Always. Our reason does not allow us to consider that complexity is created first and is then followed by the breakdown into simpler parts.

I observe that in all things, complexity is always more effort-intensive than simplicity. Complexity always requires more energy, or more thought, or more planning, or more coordination, or more creativity, or more skill. Take any collection of simple things and complexity does not, in my experience, spontaneously emerge. It requires the input of some external driver such as energy or thought or planning or whatever. It takes further effort to maintain a state of complexity. Complex things often break down into simpler things because some motive agent which sustains the complexity disappears. I cannot conclude for certain that purpose is always resident in the external impulse which drives from the simple to the complex, but wherever humans create complex things from simple things, purpose is always evident. For us, complexity takes effort and to expend effort needs purpose.

The universe around us is not parsimonious. In fact, that the universe exists at all is not the simplest state that can be imagined for all that the universe contains.

  • Simplicity gives elegance
  • Simplicity is more parsimonious than complexity.
  • Biochemistry is more complex than chemistry.
  • Nothing is always more parsimonious than something.
  • Complexity needs purpose
  • But whose purpose?

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Philosophy | Comments Off on Simplicity helps parsimony, but can complexity exist without purpose?

Purpose is a consequence only of individual consciousness

February 16, 2019

There seems to be a revival of the 70s concept of Gaia (Mother Earth). The concept, in a haze of hallucinogenic visions, endowed the Earth with consciousness and purpose. It made a new God of the Earth’s biosphere and attained a form of cult status – especially among the mindless and the great unwashed. It seems the millennials too are searching for meaning and purpose and some have revived some of the virtuous and self-righteous cults of 40 -50 years ago.

It brings back the classic dilemma of group versus individual. There can often be conflict between a “group purpose” and an individual. Invoking the “common good” is often used to suppress the individual. Democracy is all about suppressing the minority. Is a group purpose (perceived by who? defined by who?) superior to that of an individual? This is just another manifestation of the same kind of conflict interface which appears between local/global, national/international, bilateral/multilateral and centralised/distributed.

A few months ago I observed:

No Higher Purpose

Consider the characteristics of purpose.

  1. Purpose is not confined only to conscious minds or only to all living things. Purpose, as an objective or a direction, can be attributed to anything. But the attribution and its articulation seems confined to the existence of a conscious mind.
  2. Having (or being attributed with) purpose implies the flow of time. It implies a current state and actions to reach some other desired state at a later time. A purpose can not and does not address a past state.
  3. A purpose as an objective may describe a future state outside the space of perceived causality (and therefore of an imaginary state). But observe that even an imaginary future state can provide a real direction for current actions.
  4. A consciousness does not need to have a purpose and all its actions may be merely reactive. It also follows that if a conscious mind perceives no desired direction (no purpose), then its actions are reactive and merely respond to the prevailing imbalances it experiences.
  5. When more than one conscious mind is involved, individual purposes and the actions they engender, are additive and combine as vectors giving a “net” purpose.

The purpose of purposes is to give direction to actions. If an individual perceives no “higher” group purpose, that individual’s actions are then directed by that individual’s own purposes (or lack of purpose). Even where a group purpose is discernible, it can only be effected by the actions of individuals who subordinate their own purposes to that of the group. “Higher” purpose is irrelevant unless – and until – it is adopted by the entity carrying out the action. A “higher” purpose is ineffective except as disseminated and adopted by the actors.

Ultimately there is no higher purpose than that set or adopted by an individual for himself or herself.

When a group purpose suppresses or overrules an individual purpose, a feedback loop from the individual to the group (registering protest or dissent) is possible. A pseudo group consciousness comes into play (even if that can only be effected through other individuals).

But no form of group consciousness can be ascribed in any way to any species or to life in general or to Evolution or to the Earth or to the Sun.

Ultimately there is no higher purpose than that set or adopted by an individual for himself or herself.

And Mother Earth does not care what humans do or don’t do.

 

Tags:,
Posted in Behaviour | Comments Off on Purpose is a consequence only of individual consciousness

No higher purpose

July 16, 2018

(Of course the ultimate purpose of life, the universe and everything is balance – which is indistinguishable from stasis. The imbalance at the core of time, the universe and everything.

If any change – including the state of change we call life – can be said to have a purpose, it is to eliminate the imbalance which caused the change or life in the first place. It would seem then that the ultimate purpose of all change must be to return to a state of complete equilibrium where even time does not have to flow. A state of stasis.

But let us suppose that there is such a thing as purpose).

Consider the characteristics of purpose.

  1. Purpose is not confined only to conscious minds or only to all living things. Purpose, as an objective or a direction, can be attributed to anything. But the attribution and its articulation seems confined to the existence of a conscious mind.
  2. Having (or being attributed with) purpose implies the flow of time. It implies a current state and actions to reach some other desired state at a later time. A purpose can not and does not address a past state.
  3. A purpose as an objective may describe a future state outside the space of perceived causality (and therefore of an imaginary state). But observe that even an imaginary future state can provide a real direction for current actions.
  4. A consciousness does not need to have a purpose and all its actions may be merely reactive. It also follows that if a conscious mind perceives no desired direction (no purpose), then its actions are reactive and merely respond to the prevailing imbalances it experiences.
  5. When more than one conscious mind is involved, individual purposes and the actions they engender, are additive and combine as vectors giving a “net” purpose.

The purpose of purposes is to give direction to actions. If an individual perceives no “higher” group purpose, that individual’s actions are then directed by that individual’s own purposes (or lack of purpose). Even where a group purpose is discernible, it can only be effected by the actions of individuals who subordinate their own purposes to that of the group. “Higher” purpose is irrelevant unless – and until – it is adopted by the entity carrying out the action. A “higher” purpose is ineffective except as disseminated and adopted by the actors.

Ultimately there is no higher purpose than that set or adopted by an individual for himself or herself.

 

 

 

 

Tags:
Posted in Behaviour, Philosophy | Comments Off on No higher purpose

The Art of Motivation

April 21, 2011

I have been conducting a workshop on motivation in the work place as part of an exercise to establish a performance based incentive scheme for a company trying to change from being a family run enterprise to one which can be floated on the stock exchange in a year or two.

Praise Loudly, Blame Softly

In human behaviour, motivation can be considered to be a force. It is brought to bear when performing actions. Where actions have no purpose motivation is undefined. Where there is purpose I take it to be without doubt that the purpose is better served when the required actions are carried out by people who are motivated rather than by people who are indifferent.

The motivated state can then be described as that biological, emotional or cognitive condition which generates a force – variously called incentive, enthusiasm, inspiration, drive, desire, impetus or commitment – which can be applied to a person’s actions. The difference between a motivated person and an unmotivated person lies in the force they bring to bear when performing the same action. It follows that motivation is that particular force within a person which infuses dynamism into his actions or his behaviour towards a particular purpose. The art of motivation then lies in the manner of generating such a force of engagement in people when acting towards a particular purpose.  It is the influencing of human desires and drives by addressing their needs and deficiencies such that they have a vested interest in achieving the purpose. ……

It is a universal and well established observation that when some dissatisfaction is acute, all other drives and actions are subordinated to the alleviation of the acute dissatisfaction. …

What constitutes satisfaction or dissatisfaction varies from one individual to the next. What levels of these are considered acute or tolerable or acceptable or unacceptable or mild satisfaction or ecstasy, also vary with the individual. To what extent and with what velocity a change of state will drive an individual towards reaching a different state of satisfaction or dissatisfaction also depends upon the individual. With this level of variation, and with this dependence upon the individual, motivating people is in the realm of art and is still a long way from being an exact science. The use of rewards and penalties to achieve the actions chosen to be elicited from specific individuals is the art of motivation. 

….. To be able to consciously engage in motivation, which is a necessary task for a manager, it is vital that some assessment be made of the current status of satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the subject. This in turn determines whether some other state of satisfaction or reduced dissatisfaction will be sufficiently separated from the current state for any motivation to be feasible. This applies irrespective of whether the subject is a subordinate, a superior or a complete stranger. Without such an assessment the drive actually generated by any motivator that is applied, will be nothing more than a guess. The objective is of course, to intentionally provide sufficient drive to the subject such that the desired action results and is carried out forcefully. In a few cases the manager will have sufficient information to be able to make a fairly accurate assessment. In most cases however, he will only have partial information. Nevertheless, the starting point must be an assessment of the current status. 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Management | 1 Comment »