Is it possible that life was originally created so that...?

Post Reply New Topic

Is it possible that life was originally created for the sole purpose that the universe could see and experience itself?

Not likely. Life is an accidental happenstance.

ruveyn

To understand the purpose of life, we'd first have to identify its creator, then determine what the purpose of that creator was. Until we did so, any purpose would be possible, but none would be provable. However, I do see an inherent conflict in your suggestion. If the purpose of life was so "the universe could see and experience itself", that suggests "the universe" created life for that purpose - yet the only way the universe could form such a purpose would be if it were already self-aware. Otherwise, it would lack any desire to "see and experience itself", and also lack any ability to take steps to accomplish any goal. And if it were self-aware, then the universe would already have some ability to "see and experience itself". In other words, why bother?

The universe didn't become self-aware until it was in it's last hours with entropy encroaching on all sides. It was sad that it had very little knowledge of it's own history. It sent it's self-awareness back through time to experience itself as us.

and how do you know that? Are you omniscient? The chemical elements that make living systems have characteristic properties of energy density and charge distribution such that they will react with each other in particular ways depending on the conditions. Given the right ingredients and the right conditions living systems will develop. It's not only possible; it may even be inevitable in a universe as big and as old as ours.

Maybe life is just a byproduct of the relative values natural forces have in this corner of the universe. Why those forces have those values relative to each other may be pure happenstance (random), or due to some basic structure of reality that we do not yet understand but still unconscious of itself (nonrandom?)

Maybe there was a designer (the Western religious view). Maybe the universe is its own designer (the Hindu view). I discuss these latter possibilities in a short essay I wrote in 2007 about the Meaning of Life.

In 1994 I wrote a song called Prayer in which one line goes "I wonder who I'm seeing when I look into my eyes." Another song of mine from 1994 ([Eyes of Blue) has a line in the lyrics "I could see the universe in her eyes looking at me." Personally I have an open mind to whatever reality may turn out to be, whether or not it conflicts with what I now know or believe to be true.

The late edgy comedian Bill Hicks expressed a humorous news story about LSD in which a young man realized we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, similar to what the original poster of this thread asked:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D0BeLz5blM[/youtube]

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 05 May 2011, 4:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.

It may also be eternal, not in the sense of lasting a long time, but of existing outside of time, timeless. Perhaps all the moments we experience as past, present, and future exist in a huge field of potential "now moments", with our consciousnesses choosing paths through the possible presents.

In a very real sense, all that is real is now. There is no past. There is no future. Also, the past doesn't cause the present, any more than the wake trailing behind a ship propels the ship. The present causes the past. Every moment we think of as existing in the past was "now" when it happened, and any traces we have of the past (memories, fossils, distant starlight) only exist in the present moment. Some new age gurus make a big deal out of this, but there may be something to it.

I made a joke a few years ago: "Did you hear Eckhart Tolle is writing a new book? Do you know when it will be published? NOW!"

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 05 May 2011, 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It may not be "goal" oriented. The universe is musical in its structure, vibrations of various frequencies interacting with each other like a song, or a dance. The purpose of a song is not to get to the ending, otherwise we'd have composers who wrote nothing but finales and people would go to concerts just to hear one crashing chord (paraphrasing Alan Watts here). One appreciates each moment of a song as it happens.

Similarly, when one dances one doesn't aim to end up on any particular spot on the dance floor (unless it is some choreographed number). The purpose of dancing is to dance. See my essay about the Meaning of Life (link is a couple posts up in this thread). As for why, perhaps for giggles, for kicks, for fun. The Hindus say it is the Lila, the play, and even in the Bible there are hints that Jehovah also does it for giggles, although the language is much more somber than the Hindu expression of this idea.

This being in the Computers, Math, Science, and Technology subforum, I suppose we would have to start out by defining exactly what "life" is, scientifically speaking.

As phrased, I think the thread belongs more in Politics, Philosophy, and Religion.

I agree.

A system that can replicate itself, maintain its dynamic stability by some kind of homeostatic control (negative feedback) and exist for extended periods of time far from thermodynamic equilibrium.

ruveyn

[in a monotone] The burden of proof is on the party postulating the existence of a thing.

There's no solid reason to thing "God" did it, solid reason does show it is unnecessary, so why clutter the theory with an extra postulate.

.

Can't argue with that It's important to add that life isn't a thing in itself; it's just a property of certain systems similar to the on ruveyn described above. The idea that life is a thing adds a lot of confusion in some arguments.

Was life 'created'? Was there an intelligent intent behind this alleged creation? If there was intelligent intent behind the alleged creation of life, then is the intelligent creator still around?

Finally, if the alleged intelligent creator is still around, why don't you direct your question there?

Agreed. Still, in my opinion it is also wrong and even arrogant to make a statement of opinion (life is an accidental happenstance) that is currently beyond our ability to confirm or deny, and state that opinion as if it were absolute truth. That to me is just as crazy as what rabid fundamentalists of any religion claim.

In a later post to this thread ruveyn gave a good description of the properties of living systems, a description that falls within the boundaries of what we can state as observed facts. What he said about accidental happenstance though isn't the same class of statement.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 07 May 2011, 4:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

In my opinion, it is fair to state an opinion on any subject as long as the opinion so stated is declared to be an opinion, and not declared as an established fact ... wait ... didn't you just say that?

Now I'm confused.

That's a fair point, but several experiments have hinted that the chemicals which constitute life (amino acids, and more importantly, nucleotides) can form under earthy conditions, so it was definitely possible for life to form under our atmospheric conditions. I wouldn't assert is as certainty (I wouldn't assert anything as certainty), but technically, given that there is no evidence of a high caliber for God, and we exist, we assume we did originate from a "primordial soup" or something akin, so its just a matter of finding how...

Again I agree about the near certainty of abiogenesis being not just probable but inevitable given the right ingredients under the right condtions, but that misses the point I'm trying to make about whoever or whatever or even IF anyone or anything is responsible for those chemicals to have the properties they do...in other words, the first cause, prime mover or what have you. I still say it is unreasonable to state as absolute fact that chemicals have certain properties resulting in living systems entirely due to "accidental happenstance."

Once those chemicals exist, in a universe with the observed properties and natural forces, life seems inevitable without any further intervention by magic sky fairies, but where did the universe come from, even if it has always existed (which I lean towards: cycles of time, more than one big bang)? Unless one is omniscient, or until we have the technology or reasoning ability to show one way or the other, it is my opinion that such a statement as "life is accidental happenstance" is not able to be supported empirically or logically, UNLESS one adds "in my opinion" or "it is likely that...". It cannot be stated baldly as if it were proven established absolute truth like the Gospel (I am being sarcastic here).

This reminds me of the joke about a scientist challenging God. They are going to have a contest to make a man from dirt. The scientist scoops up some dirt and puts it into a test tube. God says, "No. Get your own dirt."