>The issue is that physical properties are by their nature relational, dispositional properties. That is, they describe the way that something is related to other things
Author neglects to mention that this may apply to everything except the universe itself.
>Something in the universe has to have some kind of quality in and of itself to give all the other relational/dispositional properties any meaning. Something has to get the ball rolling.
The "something" may be the universe, i.e. its total wave function. Occam's Razor suggests looking for simple explanations rather than assuming the existence of things not detectable.
Could the universe itself be conscious? Making such a claim would seem to make the author's argument a tautology.
That's an interesting idea though it's hard to see how it would work in practice. In practice, our scientific concepts are ultimately grounded in observational data, data accessible to a conscious observer. I don't see how scientific concepts could be restated in terms of the universe as a whole, especially when one considers we only have very indefinite information about the ultimate characteristics of it.
Author neglects to mention that this may apply to everything except the universe itself.
>Something in the universe has to have some kind of quality in and of itself to give all the other relational/dispositional properties any meaning. Something has to get the ball rolling.
The "something" may be the universe, i.e. its total wave function. Occam's Razor suggests looking for simple explanations rather than assuming the existence of things not detectable.
Could the universe itself be conscious? Making such a claim would seem to make the author's argument a tautology.