• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Survival and evolution of life -past & future

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Justin_Anstey

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 30, 2001
Messages
633
OP deleted the content of this seminal post, rendering the rest of the thread indecipherable to varying degrees.

...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think I speak for many when I say... huh?
 
Dunno mate.

Possibility I guess.

I think which could be a purpose of this life is to grow for where we might go. We die but we wouldn't be really dying then.

Just one of my many thoughts. :shock:
 
Re: The Ultimate Purpose of Life...

--- Post deleted at request of quoted Poster. ---
 
Why does there have to be a purpose to life?
Is there a purpose to life?
 
I'll have a pint of whatever Justin's drinking! 8)

This sort of stuff has been done before, in amazing depths of scholarship and science, in "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle", by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler.

(Why do these people insist on their middle initial? :? )

Tipler took it even further in "The Physics of Immortality" (IIRC)

Maybe there's a purpose to existence, maybe not.

As a Fortean, I'm happy to wait until more evidence is in.
Once again, the jury is still out! 8)
 
I think it's important not to get in a muddle over the difference between having a purpose to life and there being a reason we are alive today to worry about such things. The two things aren't mutually exclusive but they aren't the same.
 
mindalai said:
GSX1400 said:
What a nut!
Click to expand...

*sound of air being sucked sharply over teeth*

Are we allowed to say that here?
Click to expand...
Depends*.

Actually, I can see where Justin is coming from - and note he didn't say "I know what the purpose of life is", he said "I have an idea, but I'm not claiming conclusive proof or anything", which is very Fortean and totally acceptable.

Now, had he said "This is the purpose of life, I know this, because Spod from the planet Thhffffuun told me yesterday when he visited me for tea and dropped off some more pixie dust for my time machine", or similar, then perhaps a little more scepticism would be warranted.




*If it's a particularly fine example of a nut, then yes, we can say that here, with impunity. In any given bag of nuts, there's usually at least one utterly outstanding one.
 
Justin_Anstey said:
Nah, it's more like: "I think I know what the purpose of life is, surely it's the only logical answer."
Click to expand...
Well.... it's a logical answer, but not necessarily the only one. That sort of cardinality can be hard to defend ;).
Justin_Anstey said:
MaxMolyneux said:
I think which could be a purpose of this life is to grow for where we might go. We die but we wouldn't be really dying then.
Click to expand...
I think I speak for many when I say... huh?
Click to expand...
Perhaps Max was talking about Karma? Individual existence on Earth being a stage of spiritual evolution in preparedness for the next plane of existence?

Or maybe he wasn't. I dunno.

How did I get into this paraphrasing thing?
 
It's an interesting idea.

There is a debate about what the point of the universe is (whihc leads to the pint of life in the Universe) with The Astronomer Royal himself making some interesting points:

We'll even be able to find some astronomers to talk to thanks to a remarkable book by Alan Lightman and Roberta Brawer entitled Origins. In this book the authors report interviews with cosmologists: interviews which explore the personal, philosophical and social inclinations of modern cosmologists. We'll get a chance to "listen" to some of these cosmologists as they give their reactions to Steven Weinberg's statement, "the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless."

...

Now lets begin our "talk" with the astronomers. First is Martin Rees. Rees is Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge University. Here's his response to Weinberg's statement: "I don't understand the remark at all. First of all, I'm not quite sure what's meant by saying the universe has a "point" or not. Some people react that way because life and intelligence seem a small, unimportant part of the universe. I think that's an invalid reaction for two reasons. First, of course, there may be life all over the universe ... . But if there's no life elsewhere-if life is such a rare accident that it got started only on this one Earth-then we shouldn't think of ourselves as being the culmination of evolution. ... It's quite conceivable that, even if life exists only here on Earth, it will eventually spread through the galaxy and beyond. So life may not forever be an unimportant trace contaminant of the universe, even though it now is. In fact, I find that a rather appealing view, and I think it could be salutary if it became widely shared. Then one could properly regard the preservation of our biosphere as a matter of cosmic importance. Despite our own species unprepossessing characteristics, it may have potentialities. ... f we snuffed ourselves out, we'd be destroying genuine cosmic possibilities. So even if one believes that life is unique to the Earth now, then that doesn't mean that life is forever going to be a trivial piece of the universe. And if life exists elsewhere, then there's still less reason to believe that, in any sense, the universe is pointless."
Click to expand...


www.codingsolutions.net/s000820.html

There are subsets of the Anthropic Principle that say that successful universes make other successsful Universes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologic ... _selection

and that intelligent life could be vital to that process - uccessful universes produce intelligent life which (at the end of the Universe or at least when the fuel starts to run out) reach a level (Kardashev Type III or above) where they create new Universes which are based largely on the physical laws of the successful Universe:

Louis Crane has proposed a meduso-anthropic principle, which suggests that universes could be fine-tuned for life by intelligent beings themselves manufacturing new universes. This is essentially identical to the theory of James N. Gardner, who in his Biocosm hypothesis argues that it is not the fact that the universe generates large numbers of black holes, which leads to the production of "daughter universes", but that the universe appears so friendly to Life. The “Selfish Biocosm” hypothesis proposes that life and intelligence have not emerged merely in a series of Darwinian accidents but through the strong Anthropic principle are essentially hardwired into the cycle of cosmic creation, evolution, death, and rebirth. He argues that the destiny of highly evolved intelligence (perhaps our distant progeny) is to infuse the entire universe with life (similar to what Ray Kurzweil proposed in The Singularity is Near, eventually to accomplish the ultimate feat of cosmic reproduction by spawning one or more “baby universes,” which will themselves be endowed with life generating properties.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecund_universes

This would suggest that intelligent life is the reproductive system of Universes.

If Martin Rees is right and we could be the only species out there then this doesn't just put a lot of importantce on us not screwing up as a species it puts an awful lot of pressure on us as Michio kaku has said:

the generation now alive may be one of the most important generations ever to walk the surface of the Earth; it may well decide if we safely make the transition to a type I civilisation.
Click to expand...

In some ways this step is the most critical and the most fraught with danger as all our eggs are still in the one basket.

So in some ways we have profound importance for the Universe. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Indigo Children!! I sense a range of T shirts coming on....

See:

Parallel Worlds: The Science of Alternative Universes and Our Future in the Cosmos
by Michio Kaku (2006)
www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/01410 ... ntmagaz-21
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400033 ... enantmc-20
 
You could have "convert one get one free" offer ;)

------
T shirt slogans: "Don't be a follower be a God" ;)
 
Count me in Justin - sounds as good a reason as any.

I don't personally believe there is a bottom line "purpose" of our lives.

The truly intriguing thing for me is that each human has the freedom and ability to create purpose for their own existence where none intrinsically exists.

It means each one of us is a "Creator", as we create our own purpose in life. Some choose religion (poor choice in my opinion), some scientific discovery or expansion of knowledge, some choose hedonism, some self sacrifice. Some choose good causes, some choose pretty nasty ones; the list of options is as long as your imagination allows.

Sadly, much of the world's population doesn't even really have the choice, as their lot is simple survival, be that under oppressive regimes or just in basic poverty.
 
I can't accept that people really get to pick and choose what they believe and disbelieve in. Either one can believe in something or one cannot.
Click to expand...
Therein lies a great secret. My magic(k)al studies and one-time brush with psychotherapy have led me to believe that it is not only possible but extremely desireable to be able to 'program' our beliefs in a very real sense. Much of what both are about seems to relate to this.
 
I notice that professor of genetics Steve Jones is doing the media rounds to promote a lecture he's doing at The Royal Society* tonight called 'Why Creationism is Wrong and Evolution is Right'. It's like he was cloned in the same lab as Dawkins, I am so sick of their feeble grumbling.
Click to expand...

I'm not posting this to start an argument you have every right to believe whatever you wish, but don't you think thats a bit harsh. For all the relgions and beliefs in the world can any of them offer even a tiny percentage of real hard evidence to back up their claims compared to the evidence on offer for evolution?
Why are Dawkins and his kind 'feeble grumblers' when they are backing their beliefs up with cold hard facts? I was raised a Roman Catholic with all the baggage that goes with it but i have learned to question anything and everything to do with religions of any sort.
I'm sick and tired of listening to religions prattle on about having faith and believing with absolutley no proof, as Father Dougal summed it up in the three Bishops episode
'why is ok to eat meat on good fridays now i mean are we going to hell because we eating meat, its mad'
 
Remember kids, this is a Fortean board. Those theories with proof and those without should be given equal ground, neither universally vilified nor praised. Least, that's how I understand it.
 
Don't laugh but the other day I had one of my "I know the secrets of the universe" moments.
This time I actually remember. Basically life is just another "molecule" necessary to react with a bigger one [I.e the universe] to make an even bigger one [as in a chemical reaction].
Here is how I got the idea. Life started because there were so many elements about that sooner or later some would connect and form a molecule. This would produce other more complex molecules, which all add to the fact that once they are in existence they can be "used" to make other chemical reactions or different kind of molecules. Eventually homeo-somethings [sorry can't remember] developed. As there were many different ones, some became symbiotic, such as mitochondria "living" in another organism but helping it to get energy for that organism. Then evolution kick started as niches of unused life space were filled and eventually the most adapted survived etc.
I can't see anything wong with that, totally logic and not in any need of any design whatsoever.
However I feel that we are just "another" means for yet another bigger reaction and that would have to be with our surrounding or the universe. Maybe we are like a catalyst to some other reaction, which then will form something else and so on.

Aw knowing me again this is some really famous theory already [but I came up with it on my own]. Thought it might fit into this thread.
 
Life will react with the universe to make something even bigger??...
Sthenno said:
...Those theories with proof and those without should be given equal ground, neither universally vilified nor praised...
Click to expand...
Theories without proof should be given equal ground? Are you sure? Evidence first, surely.
 
Dawkins, etc. present themselves as being the rational and sane alternative but just come across as a bunch of utterly banal whingers. The secular world needs an equal and opposite reaction to the threat posed by these noisy minority pressure groups and I think the UPOL is it. We need to fight fire with fire. It offers a genuine alternative to the claims of religion.
Click to expand...

So Dawkins and Co are the sane and rational alternative but their message doesn't count because it comes across as boring and Whineing.?
I'm sorry have i missed a meeting or something. Ok lets find an altenative to Physics, Astronomy, Chemistry, Mathematics and all those other boring facts driven sciences. Seriously i really cannot understand how casually you can dismiss hundreds of years of serious, reasoned, experimental science just because you find it boring. Do you think that if you put up some other flashy, fantastic sounding alternative to the fundies message that they are going to listen to that as well? Maybe the reason why people are leaving churchs in the droves

The modernized, disenchanted Anglican church is fading because people want magic not metaphors.
Click to expand...

is because of serious scientific reserch is giving people a more enlightened view of the universe and their place in it. Maybe people are finally figureing out that we are but grains of sand on the vast universal beach but that doesn't stop us appreciating and understanding it in all its glory. Give me the wonder of the everyday universe and its workings anyday and long may people like dawkins continue to understand and explain it.
 
Theories without proof should be given equal ground? Are you sure? Evidence first, surely.
Click to expand...

No, I don’t believe so. Fort himself berated the whole notion of evidence and scientific fact, disliking the way it prevented further investigation into the matter. The point is, I believe, that there never is any such thing as ‘evidence’; there are things that point towards a certain conclusion, but none that exist independent of anomalies.
 
feen5 said:
So Dawkins and Co are the sane and rational alternative but their message doesn't count because it comes across as boring and Whineing.?
I'm sorry have i missed a meeting or something.
Click to expand...

Their message explains the "how" but doesn't address the "why?", and it's the "why?" of things that drives people to religion in the first place.

It's the question that science, no matter how rigorous, consistently fails to address. The fundamental "Why are we here?" is, to the some people, vastly more important than the actual, wonderful mechanics.

Science copes with small "whys" brilliantly. It's capable of tackling even quite large "whys" with relative ease, but when you start dealing with the really big stuff, scientific explantions depend more upon "how" and eventually cede the field to something approaching philosophy or mysticism. It's simply a case of not having the right tools or language to explore the question fully.

In this case, the big question is "Why am I here?"

The thread itself is attempting to offer a counter-explanation to the one provided by religion that carries the possibility of answering the Big Why with an answer that generates as much fire and enthusiasm, creates a sense of purpose and something to strive towards. Science, in and of itself, does not often do that which is why many people feel that it lacks something. Science is still perceived as cold, even inhuman, and instead of bringing people closer to the universe divorces people from it.

They may have missed the point, but that's people for you. Based on a cursory examination of Forteana in general, I would suggest that people need something to believe in (God, Greys or Gaia, it doesn't seem to matter in the end) and that is precisely what science seeks to not provide.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top