What is the purpose of the universe?

[ding]

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.


The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.


The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?


It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

Ok, so it's some guy's theory. Where's the proof?

See post #14.

That just your usual ramblings, There's no proof there. Maybe try googling the word "proof"?

We've been through this too. I have proof I accept. There is no proof you will accept. Gotta run... taking my granddaughter golfing. You have a great day living your life.

"Proof" is what everyone can accept. What you have is nothing.

Actually, proof is not what everyone can accept. Your understanding of proof is as simple as your understanding of the universe which appears to be limited to fartsmoke.

 

[ding]

 

[Mudda]

We almost don't know anything about the Universe. Maybe it has some purpose.
But it's possible the Universe has no purpose at all.
Maybe it's just an eternal flux of energy and matter who know?

We know a great deal about the universe. We know that matter formed from subatomic particles into clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. We know that cosmic structures formed from the clouds of gas. We know that supernovas then created all of the elements and compounds that we see. We know that life made the lead from non-living matter. We know that life then evolved into all the life forms that we see and eventually made the leap to beings that know and create thus allowing the universe to know itself. We know what something is created for by what it produces. All the steps I mentioned above were the processes needed to create beings that know and create and were controlled by the natural laws which came into existence at the time space and time were created. Beings that know and create were predestined by the laws of nature at the moment space and time were created.

FARTSMOKE ALERT!

You going to keep repeating this nonsense until you find someone as simple as you?

Simple as me? Well... given that you have failed to even attempt to refute any of this, I can only assume that you are the simple one and you are not intelligent enough to discuss this because you don't understand it or that you can't because what I am writing is true. So, yes, I will keep repeating it. After all, it is the truth and I really do enjoy your intellectually stimulating responses to my argument. I think it reflect the depth of your intellect quite nicely.

"Predestined" means that someone put intelligent beings into the mix on purpose. You have shown no proof to support your theory.

 

[Mudda]

Ok, so it's some guy's theory. Where's the proof?

See post #14.

That just your usual ramblings, There's no proof there. Maybe try googling the word "proof"?

We've been through this too. I have proof I accept. There is no proof you will accept. Gotta run... taking my granddaughter golfing. You have a great day living your life.

"Proof" is what everyone can accept. What you have is nothing.

Actually, proof is not what everyone can accept. Your understanding of proof is as simple as your understanding of the universe which appears to be limited to fartsmoke.

Real scientific proof is based on facts. You have a theory.

 

[ding]

See post #14.

That just your usual ramblings, There's no proof there. Maybe try googling the word "proof"?

We've been through this too. I have proof I accept. There is no proof you will accept. Gotta run... taking my granddaughter golfing. You have a great day living your life.

"Proof" is what everyone can accept. What you have is nothing.

Actually, proof is not what everyone can accept. Your understanding of proof is as simple as your understanding of the universe which appears to be limited to fartsmoke.

Real scientific proof is based on facts. You have a theory.

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either.

So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al

or

That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

 

[ding]

FARTSMOKE ALERT! You going to keep repeating this nonsense until you find someone as simple as you?

Simple as me? Well... given that you have failed to even attempt to refute any of this, I can only assume that you are the simple one and you are not intelligent enough to discuss this because you don't understand it or that you can't because what I am writing is true. So, yes, I will keep repeating it. After all, it is the truth and I really do enjoy your intellectually stimulating responses to my argument. I think it reflect the depth of your intellect quite nicely.

"Predestined" means that someone put intelligent beings into the mix on purpose. You have shown no proof to support your theory.

I would have thought an atheist like yourself would be happy that the laws of nature predestined beings that know and create. They did you know. The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would arise. Aren't you the proof of that?

 

[ding]

No content. Thread closed.

I guess that was...

 

[Mudda]

That just your usual ramblings, There's no proof there. Maybe try googling the word "proof"?

We've been through this too. I have proof I accept. There is no proof you will accept. Gotta run... taking my granddaughter golfing. You have a great day living your life.

"Proof" is what everyone can accept. What you have is nothing.

Actually, proof is not what everyone can accept. Your understanding of proof is as simple as your understanding of the universe which appears to be limited to fartsmoke.

Real scientific proof is based on facts. You have a theory.

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either.

So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al

or

That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

"if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either." The two ideas don't necessarily follow each other. They can in the case of god, which science can neither prove nor disprove. But in the case of a rock, it's the opposite, science can only prove that it exists.

 

[Mudda]

FARTSMOKE ALERT! You going to keep repeating this nonsense until you find someone as simple as you?

Simple as me? Well... given that you have failed to even attempt to refute any of this, I can only assume that you are the simple one and you are not intelligent enough to discuss this because you don't understand it or that you can't because what I am writing is true. So, yes, I will keep repeating it. After all, it is the truth and I really do enjoy your intellectually stimulating responses to my argument. I think it reflect the depth of your intellect quite nicely.

"Predestined" means that someone put intelligent beings into the mix on purpose. You have shown no proof to support your theory.

I would have thought an atheist like yourself would be happy that the laws of nature predestined beings that know and create. They did you know. The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would arise. Aren't you the proof of that?

It wasn't predestined, things unfolded in such a way that we now exist, but nothing suggests that at the start of the BB that we where already in the cards.

 

[zaangalewa]

ding
Obviously the purpose of the universe is to be and to expand, wether an intentionally ignorant racist denies this or not, because he may think, if finally no one likes to say any longer any word to any theme, then he will be right with his nearly endless stream of agressive and destructive "no-" and "anti-"statements.

"Not a bird" is by the way everything except a bird - but no one knows everything, so it's maybe better to try to find out what's a bird. Only someone who says something can be right or wrong. Someone who says only "no" says nothing.

 

[ding]

We've been through this too. I have proof I accept. There is no proof you will accept. Gotta run... taking my granddaughter golfing. You have a great day living your life.

"Proof" is what everyone can accept. What you have is nothing.

Actually, proof is not what everyone can accept. Your understanding of proof is as simple as your understanding of the universe which appears to be limited to fartsmoke.

Real scientific proof is based on facts. You have a theory.

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either.

So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al

or

That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

"if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either." The two ideas don't necessarily follow each other. They can in the case of god, which science can neither prove nor disprove. But in the case of a rock, it's the opposite, science can only prove that it exists.

Ummm... they don't follow to you because you aren't looking at the entirety of what I wrote and you are skipping steps. We only have two choices when it comes to science... we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or that everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven. I choose the former of the two. As we have been having our little discussions, you have been rejecting science and reason at every turn. As for proving God... for at least the third time... science can not prove the existence of God, but science can be used in concert with reason and experience (i.e. proxy) to indirectly study the evidence of a Creator. Specifically what He has created which includes ourselves. So not only can we study the physical world which He created, we can also study ourselves and our experiences and compare all of those thing to the written word to test the validity of it. You don't believe any of this and I really really couldn't care less because I have made the walk and am a first hand witness to my transformation and I have been rewarded. It is my sincerest desire that you continue with your failed behaviors because only when you have failed at every relationship in your life will you be ready to make a change. That's God pruning you. There is YOUR proof.

 

[idb]

It has no purpose.

 

[ding]

FARTSMOKE ALERT! You going to keep repeating this nonsense until you find someone as simple as you?

Simple as me? Well... given that you have failed to even attempt to refute any of this, I can only assume that you are the simple one and you are not intelligent enough to discuss this because you don't understand it or that you can't because what I am writing is true. So, yes, I will keep repeating it. After all, it is the truth and I really do enjoy your intellectually stimulating responses to my argument. I think it reflect the depth of your intellect quite nicely.

"Predestined" means that someone put intelligent beings into the mix on purpose. You have shown no proof to support your theory.

I would have thought an atheist like yourself would be happy that the laws of nature predestined beings that know and create. They did you know. The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would arise. Aren't you the proof of that?

It wasn't predestined, things unfolded in such a way that we now exist, but nothing suggests that at the start of the BB that we where already in the cards.

Of course it did. Anti-matter didn't have a choice to form hydrogen and helium in 1 billionth of 1 trillionth of a second. Hydrogen and helium didn't have a choice in forming the cosmic structures. The stars didn't have a choice in fusing into all the other elements during their supernovas. The chemical compounds didn't have a choice in forming. Life didn't have a choice in evolving into beings that know and create. But we do have a choice. We have a choice in how we evolve our conscience. Of course He has stacked the deck against us in that regard... successful behaviors lead to success and failed behaviors lead to failure. We can even use science to identify the morality progression which is discussed in the Bible. In effect, we can either progress or we can pay the price. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

 

[ding]

It has no purpose.

Then you most likely won't learn anything from it.

 

[Mudda]

"Proof" is what everyone can accept. What you have is nothing.

Actually, proof is not what everyone can accept. Your understanding of proof is as simple as your understanding of the universe which appears to be limited to fartsmoke.

Real scientific proof is based on facts. You have a theory.

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either.

So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al

or

That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

"if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either." The two ideas don't necessarily follow each other. They can in the case of god, which science can neither prove nor disprove. But in the case of a rock, it's the opposite, science can only prove that it exists.

Ummm... they don't follow to you because you aren't looking at the entirety of what I wrote and you are skipping steps. We only have two choices when it comes to science... we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or that everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven. I choose the former of the two. As we have been having our little discussions, you have been rejecting science and reason at every turn. As for proving God... for at least the third time... science can not prove the existence of God, but science can be used in concert with reason and experience (i.e. proxy) to indirectly study the evidence of a Creator. Specifically what He has created which includes ourselves. So not only can we study the physical world which He created, we can also study ourselves and our experiences and compare all of those thing to the written word to test the validity of it. You don't believe any of this and I really really couldn't care less because I have made the walk and am a first hand witness to my transformation and I have been rewarded. It is my sincerest desire that you continue with your failed behaviors because only when you have failed at every relationship in your life will you be ready to make a change. That's God pruning you. There is YOUR proof.

Your belief system is a mishmash of assumptions and nonsense.
And my relationship is excellent.

 

[yiostheoy]

The purpose of the universe is to create beings that know and create. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. As cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good. We know from our own experiences that men do evil not for evil's sake but for the sake of their own good. We know from our own experiences that we prefer good over evil. We know from our own experiences that when we violate the moral law we rationalize that we didn't, but we never abandon the concept. We know we live in a universe where there has never been an uncaused event. Therefore, everything does happen for a reason and everything is connected. When what we perceive as bad happens there is something good that comes from it.

We live in a universe where the laws of nature are such that where given enough time and the right conditions beings that know and create will arise. Beings that know and create were pre-destined by the laws of nature at the moment space and time were created.

There is order everywhere. It is all around you. Order from chaos. The cosmic evolutionary phase of Creation was very chaotic - the development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing - and occurred quickly. It was during this phase that hydrogen and helium were formed from sub-atomic particles. The stellar evolutionary phase of Creation saw the development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. The chemical evolutionary phase - the development of all chemical elements from an original two - occurred through supernovas which created and flung the heavier elements across the galaxies (i.e. stardust). This is very similar to how life is spread by plants here on earth which must die and let their seed fall to the ground where the seeds of life are spread by the wind. Except in this case it was star dust that was spread. All of these processes followed a predictable pattern of evolving from a more simple state, hydrogen and helium, to a more complex state, all of the elements and chemical compounds that we see today.These are the three phases in the evolution of non-living matter. Each phase evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state (i.e. order). During each phase matter had to reach its potential before the next phase could begin as each phase built upon the previous phase. The universe did not construct itself randomly. It followed natural laws. Each phase was pre-destined to occur by the laws of nature which came into existence at the time space and matter were created.

However matter made the leap to life, it is generally accepted that life began as a simple life organism; a single cell. And just like non-living matter before it, life followed a similar pattern of complexification. One of the things that sets life apart from inanimate matter is the ability to reproduce itself. When life first burst onto the scene, it rapidly reproduced itself. This is called the expansionary phase. During the expansionary phase slight mutations created just enough diversity to create competition. Eventually the rapid expansion subsides and life found itself in its equilibrium phase. During its equilibrium phase competition promoted further diversification until life reached its potential and make the leap to the next stage. Thereby starting this process all over again. At every step of the way matter complexified into order until at last beings that know and create began to exist. Thus, the universe began to know itself in the ultimate act of order from chaos.

But make no mistake, beings that know and create were pre-destined by the laws of nature at the moment space and time were created.

A common belief of atheists is that they believe that everything happened as a result of random chance and they mistakenly point to entropy as the basis for their belief. The 2nd Law states that the entropy of closed system will always increase over time. Entropy is the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. This does not prove chaos or randomness in the way they imply. It only conveys a loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work. Loss of thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work does not mean the matter within the closed system cannot be orderly. What it really means is that there is a cost for every exchange between matter and energy. Furthermore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves that the universe had a beginning because if the universe were eternal there would be no usable energy left within the closed system.

The matter/energy which you are made of was created when space and time were created. The law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed. Hence, the quantity of mass is "conserved" over time. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form, as for example when light or physical work is transformed into particles that contribute the same mass to the system as the light or work had contributed. Thus, during any chemical reaction, nuclear reaction, or radioactive decay in an isolated system, the total mass of the reactants or starting materials must be equal to the mass of the products.

The matter/energy which we are made of was created when space and time were created. We are literally star dust. We came from dust and we will return to dust. Just as the laws of nature pre-destined that we - beings that know and create - would arise.

It looks like you are new to Philosophy.

In Philosophy, the first issue that is normally addressed is Epistemology -- the question of what can we know about anything and how do we know it?

This fundamental question is usually answered in Philosophy with agreement that only pure rational logical human thought can discover anything, and then only to the extent of our limited feeble senses -- seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting.

Drebbel and Galileo added precision instruments to Natural Philosophy and this gave birth to Science, a new concept and completely separate from Philosophy and Religion, changing Philosophy and Religion forever at the micro level but not at the macro level. Science enables us to improve our sensory perceptions by seeing the almost infinitely distant and infinitely small.

But the fundamental questions of Philosophy are still unchanged. What we can know about anything and how we can know it has changed by orders of magnitude but not infinitely and not exclusively in every case.

Once you have determined by pure rational logical human thought that you yourself do indeed exist, then you must determine what else is real besides yourself. The Modern Empiricists point to the world and universe around us and accept as a given that these all exist.

Once you have ascertained that you and the world and the Universe around us exists, then you must ask "Where did it all come from?"

If it created itself, "How" did it do this?

If it was created, "Who" did this?

Thus then "We" were either created by (1) the Universe or (2) by the Creator of the Universe.

YOU are asking WHY? To what PURPOSE?

We don't even know WHO yet.

Our scientific instruments have not found the center of the Universe yet and we have not seen a Creator walking in his backyard garden.

Our pure rational logical thought has not yet been able to determine WHY?

We simply do not know. Philosophy cannot tell us. Science has not told us. And religion is mostly just doctrine and dogma corrupted by the past several thousand years.

 

[ding]

Actually, proof is not what everyone can accept. Your understanding of proof is as simple as your understanding of the universe which appears to be limited to fartsmoke.

Real scientific proof is based on facts. You have a theory.

Science proves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or it disproves the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al. Science is never conclusive because laws, theories, principles, et al are always subject to revision if new data comes along - up to and including refuting the laws, theories, principles, et al.

Some people have said that science can't disprove the existence of something. I say to those people, if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either.

So, we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al

or

That everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven.

So for the purposes of this discussion, we will assume the former; that practically speaking science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al.

"if science can't really disprove the existence of something, then science can't really prove the existence of something either." The two ideas don't necessarily follow each other. They can in the case of god, which science can neither prove nor disprove. But in the case of a rock, it's the opposite, science can only prove that it exists.

Ummm... they don't follow to you because you aren't looking at the entirety of what I wrote and you are skipping steps. We only have two choices when it comes to science... we are left with having to accept that practically speaking, science does prove and disprove the existence of laws, theories, principles, et al or that everything is taken on faith as nothing can really be proven. I choose the former of the two. As we have been having our little discussions, you have been rejecting science and reason at every turn. As for proving God... for at least the third time... science can not prove the existence of God, but science can be used in concert with reason and experience (i.e. proxy) to indirectly study the evidence of a Creator. Specifically what He has created which includes ourselves. So not only can we study the physical world which He created, we can also study ourselves and our experiences and compare all of those thing to the written word to test the validity of it. You don't believe any of this and I really really couldn't care less because I have made the walk and am a first hand witness to my transformation and I have been rewarded. It is my sincerest desire that you continue with your failed behaviors because only when you have failed at every relationship in your life will you be ready to make a change. That's God pruning you. There is YOUR proof.

Your belief system is a mishmash of assumptions and nonsense.
And my relationship is excellent.

And I could not be happier for you to believe that.

 

[Mudda]

FARTSMOKE ALERT! You going to keep repeating this nonsense until you find someone as simple as you?

Simple as me? Well... given that you have failed to even attempt to refute any of this, I can only assume that you are the simple one and you are not intelligent enough to discuss this because you don't understand it or that you can't because what I am writing is true. So, yes, I will keep repeating it. After all, it is the truth and I really do enjoy your intellectually stimulating responses to my argument. I think it reflect the depth of your intellect quite nicely.

"Predestined" means that someone put intelligent beings into the mix on purpose. You have shown no proof to support your theory.

I would have thought an atheist like yourself would be happy that the laws of nature predestined beings that know and create. They did you know. The laws of nature predestined that beings that know and create would arise. Aren't you the proof of that?

It wasn't predestined, things unfolded in such a way that we now exist, but nothing suggests that at the start of the BB that we where already in the cards.

Of course it did. Anti-matter didn't have a choice to form hydrogen and helium in 1 billionth of 1 trillionth of a second. Hydrogen and helium didn't have a choice in forming the cosmic structures. The stars didn't have a choice in fusing into all the other elements during their supernovas. The chemical compounds didn't have a choice in forming. Life didn't have a choice in evolving into beings that know and create. But we do have a choice. We have a choice in how we evolve our conscience. Of course He has stacked the deck against us in that regard... successful behaviors lead to success and failed behaviors lead to failure. We can even use science to identify the morality progression which is discussed in the Bible. In effect, we can either progress or we can pay the price. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Top Ten Scientific Flaws In The Big Bang Theory
You might have to rethink your theory.

 

[yiostheoy]

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.


The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.


The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?


It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”


George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

It is a fallacy of false authority to muddle into Philosophy as a Scientist.

That would be like a priest muddling in Science.

Or like a scientist muddling in Religion.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia

 

[yiostheoy]

It is funny how people eventually learn that without a thorough study of Philosophy they themselves really don't understand anything, even Science. And certainly NOT Religion either.