Does Nature have a preference for life to exist?

[Vastator]

It seems that some people are trying to say that if there were another universe with life in it that that life would not be programmed to survive and procreate. That seems like a strange position to me.

It doesn’t seem that way to me. I’m not sure how many people you purport to speak for...?

 

[Vastator]

That’s doubtful but doesn’t matter.

Why is it doubtful?

What’s more; how could it not matter?

Because the laws of this universe are such that intelligence was predestined to arise.

This we know.

No. “We” don’t. You speak for yourself only, Others May share your belief. But it is only a belief, at this point...

We absolutely know do because intelligence did arise and did so through natural processes, right? Why would you expect the natural processes to yield a different result?

Science is the study of the order within nature to understand the order of nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

Are you suggesting that we should discard those observations and make diametrically opposite predictions? That doesn't seem like it makes any sense.

None of that proves predestiny.

 

[ding]

Why is it doubtful?

What’s more; how could it not matter?

Because the laws of this universe are such that intelligence was predestined to arise.

This we know.

No. “We” don’t. You speak for yourself only, Others May share your belief. But it is only a belief, at this point...

We absolutely know do because intelligence did arise and did so through natural processes, right? Why would you expect the natural processes to yield a different result?

Science is the study of the order within nature to understand the order of nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

Are you suggesting that we should discard those observations and make diametrically opposite predictions? That doesn't seem like it makes any sense.

None of that proves predestiny.

Maybe not in the sense that you believe but everything had unfolded exactly as it should according to the laws of nature. Surely you agree that intelligent existed as a potential before it was realized, right?

 

[ding]

It seems that some people are trying to say that if there were another universe with life in it that that life would not be programmed to survive and procreate. That seems like a strange position to me.

It doesn’t seem that way to me. I’m not sure how many people you purport to speak for...?

You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Montrovant]

The laws of nature as we know them might be specific to this universe. We don't know.

That’s doubtful but doesn’t matter.

Why is it doubtful?

What’s more; how could it not matter?

Because the laws of this universe are such that intelligence was predestined to arise.

This we know.

We know that intelligence did arise, not that it was "predestined" to do so.

 

[Taz]

Why is it doubtful?

Because there is no basis for saying it would be different. Why would it?

Each universe may have its own laws, we don't know.

Why would it? Why wouldn't you expect matter and energy and the laws of nature to be the same everywhere?

No, not really. Nothing points to that.

You mean besides the observations we are able to make here? Can you tell me why you would expect it to be different?

Because nothing suggests that it can't be different.

 

[Taz]

Why is it doubtful?

Because there is no basis for saying it would be different. Why would it?

That isn’t an argument.

Actually it is. We can only examine what we can access. To believe it is that way everywhere has basis. To believe it would be different has no basis.

What basis?

The laws of nature we can observe and study.

Doesn't mean other universes couldn't have different laws.

 

[Taz]

What’s more; how could it not matter?

Because the laws of this universe are such that intelligence was predestined to arise.

This we know.

No. “We” don’t. You speak for yourself only, Others May share your belief. But it is only a belief, at this point...

We absolutely know do because intelligence did arise and did so through natural processes, right? Why would you expect the natural processes to yield a different result?

Science is the study of the order within nature to understand the order of nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

Are you suggesting that we should discard those observations and make diametrically opposite predictions? That doesn't seem like it makes any sense.

None of that proves predestiny.

Maybe not in the sense that you believe but everything had unfolded exactly as it should according to the laws of nature. Surely you agree that intelligent existed as a potential before it was realized, right?

You can't prove any of that, it's all theory.

 

[ding]

The laws of nature as we know them might be specific to this universe. We don't know.

That’s doubtful but doesn’t matter.

Why is it doubtful?

What’s more; how could it not matter?

Because the laws of this universe are such that intelligence was predestined to arise.

This we know.

We know that intelligence did arise, not that it was "predestined" to do so.

Do you believe the potential for intelligence to arise existed before it was realized?

 

[ding]

Because there is no basis for saying it would be different. Why would it?

Each universe may have its own laws, we don't know.

Why would it? Why wouldn't you expect matter and energy and the laws of nature to be the same everywhere?

No, not really. Nothing points to that.

You mean besides the observations we are able to make here? Can you tell me why you would expect it to be different?

Because nothing suggests that it can't be different.

Nothing suggests it can be AND we have an example of what it is.

 

[ding]

Because the laws of this universe are such that intelligence was predestined to arise.

This we know.

No. “We” don’t. You speak for yourself only, Others May share your belief. But it is only a belief, at this point...

We absolutely know do because intelligence did arise and did so through natural processes, right? Why would you expect the natural processes to yield a different result?

Science is the study of the order within nature to understand the order of nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

Are you suggesting that we should discard those observations and make diametrically opposite predictions? That doesn't seem like it makes any sense.

None of that proves predestiny.

Maybe not in the sense that you believe but everything had unfolded exactly as it should according to the laws of nature. Surely you agree that intelligent existed as a potential before it was realized, right?

You can't prove any of that, it's all theory.

Sure I can. Watch and see.

 

[Montrovant]

That’s doubtful but doesn’t matter.

Why is it doubtful?

What’s more; how could it not matter?

Because the laws of this universe are such that intelligence was predestined to arise.

This we know.

We know that intelligence did arise, not that it was "predestined" to do so.

Do you believe the potential for intelligence to arise existed before it was realized?

Clearly yes.

 

[ding]

Because there is no basis for saying it would be different. Why would it?

That isn’t an argument.

Actually it is. We can only examine what we can access. To believe it is that way everywhere has basis. To believe it would be different has no basis.

What basis?

The laws of nature we can observe and study.

Doesn't mean other universes couldn't have different laws.

The nature of matter and energy says otherwise.

 

[ding]

Why is it doubtful?

What’s more; how could it not matter?

Because the laws of this universe are such that intelligence was predestined to arise.

This we know.

We know that intelligence did arise, not that it was "predestined" to do so.

Do you believe the potential for intelligence to arise existed before it was realized?

Clearly yes.

Did this potential exist before living things existed?

 

[Montrovant]

What’s more; how could it not matter?

Because the laws of this universe are such that intelligence was predestined to arise.

This we know.

We know that intelligence did arise, not that it was "predestined" to do so.

Do you believe the potential for intelligence to arise existed before it was realized?

Clearly yes.

Did this potential exist before living things existed?

Unless living things have always existed, yes.

 

[ding]

Because the laws of this universe are such that intelligence was predestined to arise.

This we know.

We know that intelligence did arise, not that it was "predestined" to do so.

Do you believe the potential for intelligence to arise existed before it was realized?

Clearly yes.

Did this potential exist before living things existed?

Unless living things have always existed, yes.

Do you believe that the events which set the stage for matter to make the leap to life were inevitable (i.e. cosmic evolution, stellar evolution and chemical evolution)

 

[ding]

By the events which set the stage I mean to say the prerequisites.

 

[Montrovant]

We know that intelligence did arise, not that it was "predestined" to do so.

Do you believe the potential for intelligence to arise existed before it was realized?

Clearly yes.

Did this potential exist before living things existed?

Unless living things have always existed, yes.

Do you believe that the events which set the stage for matter to make the leap to life were inevitable (i.e. cosmic evolution, stellar evolution and chemical evolution)

I have no idea. It depends on which events in particular, and from what point. For some, I would guess my answer would be that I don't and cannot know.

 

[Taz]

Each universe may have its own laws, we don't know.

Why would it? Why wouldn't you expect matter and energy and the laws of nature to be the same everywhere?

No, not really. Nothing points to that.

You mean besides the observations we are able to make here? Can you tell me why you would expect it to be different?

Because nothing suggests that it can't be different.

Nothing suggests it can be AND we have an example of what it is.

So we don’t know what could be out there, to suggest that you do is absurd.

 

[Taz]

That isn’t an argument.

Actually it is. We can only examine what we can access. To believe it is that way everywhere has basis. To believe it would be different has no basis.

What basis?

The laws of nature we can observe and study.

Doesn't mean other universes couldn't have different laws.

The nature of matter and energy says otherwise.

In this universe.