Towards a theory of amorality?

[Subteigh]

Life is not unnatural. Humans clearly do not defy the laws of nature, because they can't.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Given the choice between life existing or not on this planet, then the non existing would simply take more effort than the existing (of life.)

[Subteigh]

Given the choice between life existing or not on this planet, then the non existing would simply take more effort than the existing (of life.)

Given who's choice?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Given who's choice?

The Cure, Robert Smith (I quite like The Forrest), the universe, nature, all that jazz. I think I agree with you. It would be unnatural for life to non-exist. fwiw, I think I just think phrases like 'non-existing' and 'not non-existing', but I am sure I will move on to natural new existential pastures.

[Subteigh]

The Cure, Robert Smith (I quite like The Forrest), the universe, nature, all that jazz. I think I agree with you. It would be unnatural for life to non-exist. fwiwi, I think I just think phrases like 'non-existing' and 'not non-existing', but I am sure I will move on to natural new existential pastures.

It's not possible to determine whether it is more likely for this Universe to have ever had life or to have never had life. I think most people would believe that this Universe has had life.

Likewise, it cannot be reasonably said whether any random Universe is more likey to ever have life than not unless we have observed a few universes or so. Even if that was possible, imagine how difficult it would be to prove that an Universe had never had life.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

It's not possible to determine whether it is more likely for this Universe to have ever had life or to have never had life. I think most people would believe that this Universe has had life.

We know that the laws of the universe determine that this planet has to harbour life if it takes the path of least energy. Taking the path of least energy is also an observable law of the universe.

Likewise, it cannot be reasonably said whether any random Universe is more likey to ever have life than not unless we have observed a few universes or so. Even if that was possible, imagine how difficult it would be to prove that an Universe had never had life.

The existences of other universes is not something we can even be sure of yet. However, if other universes do exist, one does not need to observe life in order to know if it existed. How do you think we know the moon has always been a seperate body to the earth if we didn't observe it when it formed?

[Subteigh]

We know that the laws of the universe determine that this planet has to harbour life if it takes the path of least energy. Taking the path of least energy is also an observable law of the universe.

I don't believe this is true. We only know that this planet 'had' to have life in retrospect. We infer from observation that the universe takes the path of least energy, and this is why we believe we know how the Moon was formed.

The existences of other universes is not something we can even be sure of yet. However, if other universes do exist, one does not need to observe life in order to know if it existed. How do you think we know the moon has always been a seperate body to the earth if we didn't observe it when it formed?

I believe there have been scientific reports of universes overlapping like bubbles, but it's still early days. I was talking about where you said "Given the choice between life existing or not on this planet, then the non existing would simply take more effort than the existing (of life.)".

How would this be determined? This universe could plausibly have only lasted 40 nanoseconds before collapsing on itself, but still, any such universe may have had properties that led to the creation of 'life' in that short-time, because we have no knowledge of what is plausible in other universes.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I don't believe this is true. We only know that this planet 'had' to have life in retrospect.



I believe there has been scientific reports of universes overlapping like bubbles, but it's still early days. I was talking about where you said "Given the choice between life existing or not on this planet, then the non existing would simply take more effort than the existing (of life.)".

How would this be determined? This universe could plausibly have only lasted 40 nanoseconds before collapsing on itself, but still, any such universe may have had properties that led to the creation of 'life' in that short-time, because we have no knowledge of what is plausible in other universes.

There are theories of other universes. Some of these theories are pretty elaborate and will probably be confirmed by the LHC near Geneva. One such theory is called the multi-verse, were our universe is one of an infinite number of universes.

Each of these universes would have different rules. Our universe has it's rules were for the position of our planet and it's chemical/geological composition make up make it impossible that life wouldn't have evolved. It's just another part of the laws that formed for our universe.

I respect your decision not to believe/believe, but doesn't seem to change reality?

[Subteigh]

I really don't think we can know that it would have been impossible for life to have never evolved in this universe - that is something we believe we know with the benefit of hindsight.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

What about Boltzmann brains?

[Subteigh]

What about Boltzmann brains?

That just makes everything all the more difficult.

[ZTCrawcrustle]

I really don't think we can know that it would have been impossible for life to have never evolved in this universe - that is something we believe we know with the benefit of hindsight.

Actually, in a sense, we can. The laws Cyclops was referring to several posts above are not that simple. The majority of the suspected differences between the universes in the multi-verse are general laws of molecular structure and interaction. Simply put, had several values of molecular integrity in our universe been slightly different, several vital life processes and/or necessities (like water) would have been impossible in the first place.

[ArchonAlarion]

Actually, in a sense, we can. The laws Cyclops was referring to several posts above are not that simple. The majority of the suspected differences between the universes in the multi-verse are general laws of molecular structure and interaction. Simply put, had several values of molecular integrity in our universe been slightly different, several vital life processes and/or necessities (like water) would have been impossible in the first place.

we'd then just have a different form of "life" based on different molecules.