The universe contains (to the best of my knowledge) around seven billion human brains, so it seems a fair bet. 
It is trivially the case⌠âThe sum of all parts is greater than or equal to any of the individual parts.â (one of the parts of the universe is the human brainâŚ)
Even if you subtracted all brains the amount of mass is greater and considering the number of galaxys (simply the oneâs we know of) and the amount of interaction occurring between all that mass, I would say that even then it would be more complex⌠(at least more so then a single brain)
Well clearly complexity can arise from simplicity as demonstrated by evolution.
So, why is the universe more complex then a brain? Because the brain is contained in it?
Thatâs like saying that a box is more complex then a laptop, after all there are laptops in boxes.
Maybe, I donât know what complexity means, but this doesnât make sense to me.
I think that means the universe is bigger and more dense then a brain, not more complex�
You know the difference between being a part of something and being contained by something, yes?
Your analogy is way off⌠it would be more like saying that a laptop is more complex than a bit of silicone or wire.
Computers are made of silicone, wire and other components.
The universe isnât made of brainsâŚ
I wouldnât say the Universe has a will, so much as it is a manifestation of will[s]. The relations thereof pointing to a unity within the system, rather than a similarity to another [hypothetical] system.
We can be said to have a will inasmuch as we are, to some extent, self determining. The will is something foundational in our existence, and subsequently in our behaviors, but we arenât driven solely by necessity. That is to say, we âhaveâ a will insofar as we are capable of directing and understanding aspects of it.
The Universe, on the other hand, seems to me an almost direct manifestation, and representation, of the will as necessity.
âŚwhat do you propose the universe is made of? You assume the universe consists of a single kind of corporeal matter?
Is the universe made of ânatureâ any more or less than a constituent or aspect of nature?
The universe is not the box in this example it is the box and the laptopâŚ
Not contained within it as something separate, but a part of it. The universe is everything, including your brain and whatâs left of mine; itâs not just a boundary that lots of other non-universe stuff is piled into.
So, you are universe as wellâŚ
I see where youâre getting at.
It use to be that every elementary course in Algebra opened with Set Theory. One of the very first things that one learns there, but sadly not in English class, is that there are two, and only two methods of constructing a set, enumeration and definition. Now this puts Set Theory as a shadow of a Two-Element Metaphysics that, among others, Plato was working with.
This fact of set creation is just another expression that there are two, and only two, elements, it also tells one that of the two elements, one of them determines class membership, i.e. it determines all of assertion and denial, or the principles that police the simple sentence.
Now let us take a look at what will is.
Every living creature survives by crafting the environment into products that maintain and promotes that creatures life. One can write a more formal description of this as,
An environmental acquisition system of a living organism must acquire something from the environment, process that which it has acquired, for a product that maintains and promotes the life of that organism.
Now, one can take this and find the sacred seven of scripture, one of whcih is the human mindâafter all, if one were a prophet learned in metaphor, then the name of the Beast 666 would be easily solvable as the answer is given 4 times in the text what to do with the resulting numbers. âMake our coming and going so as to turn the past into the future and to bring the future to pass.â i.e. it is a double locked metaphor about the human mind. Anywayk, getting back on track, the human mind is,
That environmental acquisition system which must acquire experience from the environment in order to produce human will that maintains and promotes the life of the body.
Here is where one can understand Platoâs distinction between will and desire, will is the product of the human mind. The human mind functions through grammar-lack of reason is not a product of the human mind, thus, one should come to understand Plato as one of the first, and truist psychologist of history.
However, what all this amounts to, is that the Universe, in order to have will, would have to acquire something from that which is not the Universe, which is non-sense, or acquire it from itself, which would be self referential, which again is non-sense.
Predication is the inverse function of abstraction. We may agree upon the symbols to construct names with, but that which is named determines how those words may or may not be used. This is what is meant that truth is independent of both gods and men.
The universe is quite literally everything. It only becomes a thing in itself when viewed in very monistic terms â as in a single, unifying substance in nature. However, we often fancy the assumption that we are somehow separate from ânatureâ. The universe is nature. We are natural. The unity implicit in âthe universeâ is all-pervading.
I am not the universe but rather a part of itâŚthough perhaps that is what you meantâŚ
I tend to think the universe is infinite⌠in which case our brains level of complexity most certainly pales in comparison.
If the universe does not have will then there is something else, that being things with will, from which it can then acquire will?
But rather you would be presuming that it as being something that has always existed did not need to acquire willâŚbut rather will is an aspect of it that has always existed.
If you look at the universe from a Complexity Science standpoint, it is entirely and massively complex. But it is only trivially so.
For the universe to have will, the will would need to contain the universe, as opposed to the universe containing the will. If the will was contained by the universe, there would be a part of the universe not containing the will, and the will would therefore be not universal. The whole idea that the universeâs will must be similar to the will of a life-form is completely off, unless one is merely arguing that a word other than âwillâ ought to be used in such cases.
I think that the universe could be described as seeming to have a will as long as it is assumed that physics behaves causally. That way it would be possible for the fate of the universe to be certain before the beginning of time. The universe must end a certain way, therefore it can be described as âwantingâ to end that way.
To clarify- should an entity seem to possess a contrary will, that contrary will will not be opposed by the universal will, but subverted by it. The way that things are going to fall into place could be considered the evidence of the universal will, rather than the way that thing things seem to be headed. Itâs inaccurate to say that one CANNOT oppose the universal will. Instead, one WILL NOT oppose the universal will.
Well now you have a great point indeed. However, it makes me shudder to think that every time I am having a cup of coffee, I am really taking a bath.
I suspect that one of the first things one needs to know which is the container and which is the contained. I am so confused.