Does Nature have a preference for life to exist?

[ding]

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.

Cosmic evolution is the formation of hydrogen and helium from sub atomic particles in the early universe. Stellar evolution is the formation of structures from hydrogen and helium. Chemical evolution is the creation of all the elements and compounds from supernovas.

Before life could make the leap from inanimate matter all of these things had to occur. In effect they were prerequisites before life could emerge.

Would you agree with me that these events had to occur before life could emerge and were inevitable and controlled through natural process according to the laws of nature?

 

[ding]

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.

What would be absurd is to argue that it would be any different.

 

[ding]

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.

Are you suggesting that our universe is somehow unique and special?

 

[BreezeWood]

Would you agree with me that these events had to occur before life could emerge and were inevitable and controlled through natural process according to the laws of nature?

before life could emerge ...

the elements are the initial form of life -

followed by compounds - H2O

... the building blocks in the formation of metaphysical physiology and its spiritual content. the biological component of life under ideal conditions remains as a variable where failure or extinction may be as likely as the organisms success over time.

 

[anotherlife]

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.

Cosmic evolution is the formation of hydrogen and helium from sub atomic particles in the early universe. Stellar evolution is the formation of structures from hydrogen and helium. Chemical evolution is the creation of all the elements and compounds from supernovas.

Before life could make the leap from inanimate matter all of these things had to occur. In effect they were prerequisites before life could emerge.

Would you agree with me that these events had to occur before life could emerge and were inevitable and controlled through natural process according to the laws of nature?

This is restrictive to only one form of life, and we don't know how many forms of it exist. There are physical theories of attributing life to parallel universes interacting with matter in this universe.

 

[Taz]

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.

What would be absurd is to argue that it would be any different.

I’m not, I’m saying that it could be different because nobody knows.

 

[Taz]

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.

Are you suggesting that our universe is somehow unique and special?

Could be. We need real, proof to know.

 

[ding]

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.

What would be absurd is to argue that it would be any different.

I’m not, I’m saying that it could be different because nobody knows.

Right but the people who contemplate other universes assume the nature of matter and energy is the same.

 

[Taz]

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.

What would be absurd is to argue that it would be any different.

I’m not, I’m saying that it could be different because nobody knows.

Right but the people who contemplate other universes assume the nature of matter and energy is the same.

No they don't. Got a link?

 

[ding]

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.

What would be absurd is to argue that it would be any different.

I’m not, I’m saying that it could be different because nobody knows.

Right but the people who contemplate other universes assume the nature of matter and energy is the same.

No they don't. Got a link?

What do you think they base their calculations on?

 

[Taz]

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

What would be absurd is to argue that it would be any different.

I’m not, I’m saying that it could be different because nobody knows.

Right but the people who contemplate other universes assume the nature of matter and energy is the same.

No they don't. Got a link?

What do you think they base their calculations on?

So you have no link. Got it. So personal opinion then.

 

[ding]

What would be absurd is to argue that it would be any different.

I’m not, I’m saying that it could be different because nobody knows.

Right but the people who contemplate other universes assume the nature of matter and energy is the same.

No they don't. Got a link?

What do you think they base their calculations on?

So you have no link. Got it. So personal opinion then.

They didn’t write a paper to justify their use of matter and energy as they know it.

You claim they didn’t do that, so do you have a link?

Gotcha.

 

[Taz]

I’m not, I’m saying that it could be different because nobody knows.

Right but the people who contemplate other universes assume the nature of matter and energy is the same.

No they don't. Got a link?

What do you think they base their calculations on?

So you have no link. Got it. So personal opinion then.

They didn’t write a paper to justify their use of matter and energy as they know it.

You claim they didn’t do that, so do you have a link?

Gotcha.

If they didn't do it, how can there be a link to that? Please try again.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Cosmic evolution is the formation of hydrogen and helium from sub atomic particles in the early universe. Stellar evolution is the formation of structures from hydrogen and helium. Chemical evolution is the creation of all the elements and compounds from supernovas.

Before life could make the leap from inanimate matter all of these things had to occur. In effect they were prerequisites before life could emerge.

Would you agree with me that these events had to occur before life could emerge and were inevitable and controlled through natural process according to the laws of nature?

Those events might have had to occur before life as we know it could emerge. They may have been inevitable based on certain existing preconditions, I couldn't tell you without looking into them (assuming I could tell you then ). I'm willing to accept that the conditions which obtained made those events inevitable to further the discussion, though.

 

[ding]

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.

Cosmic evolution is the formation of hydrogen and helium from sub atomic particles in the early universe. Stellar evolution is the formation of structures from hydrogen and helium. Chemical evolution is the creation of all the elements and compounds from supernovas.

Before life could make the leap from inanimate matter all of these things had to occur. In effect they were prerequisites before life could emerge.

Would you agree with me that these events had to occur before life could emerge and were inevitable and controlled through natural process according to the laws of nature?

Those events might have had to occur before life as we know it could emerge. They may have been inevitable based on certain existing preconditions, I couldn't tell you without looking into them (assuming I could tell you then ). I'm willing to accept that the conditions which obtained made those events inevitable to further the discussion, though.

Ok, thanks. I can tell you that by inspection I believe that for matter to make the leap from inanimate matter to life a specific level of complexification is necessary as well as specific conditions needing to exist. None of which could have occurred without chemical evolution occurring. Additionally the transition front sub atomic particles to hydrogen and helium and the resulting cosmic structures and chemical evolution were absolutely inevitable due to the laws of nature.

With that said how life made the leap from inanimate matter is not very well understood. But in a probabilistic manner given the scale of the universe I believe that leap was inevitable.

Do you believe that given the right conditions and enough time that the laws of nature are such that life will inevitably arise?

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Cosmic evolution is the formation of hydrogen and helium from sub atomic particles in the early universe. Stellar evolution is the formation of structures from hydrogen and helium. Chemical evolution is the creation of all the elements and compounds from supernovas.

Before life could make the leap from inanimate matter all of these things had to occur. In effect they were prerequisites before life could emerge.

Would you agree with me that these events had to occur before life could emerge and were inevitable and controlled through natural process according to the laws of nature?

Those events might have had to occur before life as we know it could emerge. They may have been inevitable based on certain existing preconditions, I couldn't tell you without looking into them (assuming I could tell you then ). I'm willing to accept that the conditions which obtained made those events inevitable to further the discussion, though.

Ok, thanks. I can tell you that by inspection I believe that for matter to make the leap from inanimate matter to life a specific level of complexification is necessary as well as specific conditions needing to exist. None of which could have occurred without chemical evolution occurring. Additionally the transition front sub atomic particles to hydrogen and helium and the resulting cosmic structures and chemical evolution were absolutely inevitable due to the laws of nature.

With that said how life made the leap from inanimate matter is not very well understood. But in a probabilistic manner given the scale of the universe I believe that leap was inevitable.

Do you believe that given the right conditions and enough time that the laws of nature are such that life will inevitably arise?

I honestly have no idea. The problem is that we know life arose, but can't test or observe similar systems from their beginnings to see if life arises. For that matter, we don't know what caused life to arise here, although there are obviously hypotheses about it.

In some ways your question could be seen as asking whether the universe is entirely deterministic, or if random chance plays a part.

 

[ding]

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.

Cosmic evolution is the formation of hydrogen and helium from sub atomic particles in the early universe. Stellar evolution is the formation of structures from hydrogen and helium. Chemical evolution is the creation of all the elements and compounds from supernovas.

Before life could make the leap from inanimate matter all of these things had to occur. In effect they were prerequisites before life could emerge.

Would you agree with me that these events had to occur before life could emerge and were inevitable and controlled through natural process according to the laws of nature?

Those events might have had to occur before life as we know it could emerge. They may have been inevitable based on certain existing preconditions, I couldn't tell you without looking into them (assuming I could tell you then ). I'm willing to accept that the conditions which obtained made those events inevitable to further the discussion, though.

Ok, thanks. I can tell you that by inspection I believe that for matter to make the leap from inanimate matter to life a specific level of complexification is necessary as well as specific conditions needing to exist. None of which could have occurred without chemical evolution occurring. Additionally the transition front sub atomic particles to hydrogen and helium and the resulting cosmic structures and chemical evolution were absolutely inevitable due to the laws of nature.

With that said how life made the leap from inanimate matter is not very well understood. But in a probabilistic manner given the scale of the universe I believe that leap was inevitable.

Do you believe that given the right conditions and enough time that the laws of nature are such that life will inevitably arise?

I honestly have no idea. The problem is that we know life arose, but can't test or observe similar systems from their beginnings to see if life arises. For that matter, we don't know what caused life to arise here, although there are obviously hypotheses about it.

In some ways your question could be seen as asking whether the universe is entirely deterministic, or if random chance plays a part.

So you are saying that you believe that given the right conditions that life would not always arise in this universe?

That it was an entirely random chance. An accident.

That’s interesting because nature clearly gave life certain attributes; the urge to eat, procreate and survive.

We’re those accidents too? Because we see those attributes across all species.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Cosmic evolution is the formation of hydrogen and helium from sub atomic particles in the early universe. Stellar evolution is the formation of structures from hydrogen and helium. Chemical evolution is the creation of all the elements and compounds from supernovas.

Before life could make the leap from inanimate matter all of these things had to occur. In effect they were prerequisites before life could emerge.

Would you agree with me that these events had to occur before life could emerge and were inevitable and controlled through natural process according to the laws of nature?

Those events might have had to occur before life as we know it could emerge. They may have been inevitable based on certain existing preconditions, I couldn't tell you without looking into them (assuming I could tell you then ). I'm willing to accept that the conditions which obtained made those events inevitable to further the discussion, though.

Ok, thanks. I can tell you that by inspection I believe that for matter to make the leap from inanimate matter to life a specific level of complexification is necessary as well as specific conditions needing to exist. None of which could have occurred without chemical evolution occurring. Additionally the transition front sub atomic particles to hydrogen and helium and the resulting cosmic structures and chemical evolution were absolutely inevitable due to the laws of nature.

With that said how life made the leap from inanimate matter is not very well understood. But in a probabilistic manner given the scale of the universe I believe that leap was inevitable.

Do you believe that given the right conditions and enough time that the laws of nature are such that life will inevitably arise?

I honestly have no idea. The problem is that we know life arose, but can't test or observe similar systems from their beginnings to see if life arises. For that matter, we don't know what caused life to arise here, although there are obviously hypotheses about it.

In some ways your question could be seen as asking whether the universe is entirely deterministic, or if random chance plays a part.

So you are saying that you believe that given the right conditions that life would not always arise in this universe?

That it was an entirely random chance. An accident.

That’s interesting because nature clearly gave life certain attributes; the urge to eat, procreate and survive.

We’re those accidents too? Because we see those attributes across all species.

I'm saying that it could have been random chance, I don't know. I'm saying that just because life exists does not mean it was inevitable that it would exist.

 

[WinterBorn]

You hear all the time that people believe in a higher power but that he is an impersonal God who doesn't care what happens to us.

But is that really what the data would suggest?

So my question is... Does Nature have a preference for life to exist?

I say, yes. Yes, Nature has a preference for us to exist.

Nature does not have a preference, as that implies some intelligence outside of nature.

It is not a preference. It is life exploiting a void.

 

[ding]

You hear all the time that people believe in a higher power but that he is an impersonal God who doesn't care what happens to us.

But is that really what the data would suggest?

So my question is... Does Nature have a preference for life to exist?

I say, yes. Yes, Nature has a preference for us to exist.

Nature does not have a preference, as that implies some intelligence outside of nature.

It is not a preference. It is life exploiting a void.

If nature had no preference for life to exist and to evolve then why did it give life the urge to survive and procreate?