/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10156575
>Is life really nothing more than a orderly structure
It's not even that

Basically is the consensus set in stone because of overwhelming evidence or is there still a slight possibility that God is involved

>>10156576
Well im not really focused on the specifics, but let's say the last common ancestor (which predates all plants,mammals etc) and couldnt even breathe and reproduce, was merely a random arrangement of atoms and not placed there by a greater being (such as alien life or god) simply due to low entropy, or is my interpretation completely wrong

>>10156575
Even if a god existed, it would be considerably different from the conventional gods who are too stupid to have created this universe.

>>10156592
I agree completely. I think this life is damn special just studying how low the odds are of any of this happening at all. But there's still an inner fire inside me looking to serve a greater goal to this life and I've never been able to find what. Some defective instinct probably

>>10156575
You hit the nail on the head. The goal of life is to live. Therefore, the meaning of every person's existence should be to figure out ways to sustain life. It's not so easy, as you may have noticed. There are innumerable threats to our existence. In short, the meaning of life is to do science.

>>10156575
Read the ctmu.

>>10156575
There is no goal in life: not to live, not anything. The universe is pure freedom, infocognitive potential. In other words, the universe has no rules at all, and because of that the universe contains everything (every world, including the impossible kind) including the part where we live which has local rules.

>>10156604
woahhh... hadn't read your comment, but yes, I'm also basing my ideas on CTMU, what a coincidence lol

>>10156577
There isn't any experiment that could rule out an omnipotent being orchestrating everything. That's why it's not a valid scientific hypothesis if that wasn't obvious.

>>10156599
The greater goal is to live to the end of the universe, and then perhaps even survive that. Perhaps escape to another universe. I can't even imagine what could look like, but I have thought about it a bit. In light of recent revelations in neuroscience, it would seem that we don't need brain uploading or cloning to extend our lifespan beyond our bodies. We need only mind melding, a hivemind, an overmind. As minds are melded together, they become one consciousness. This way, one's consciousness and perhaps even personality and memories can pass from one body to the next unscathed. Perhaps once we achieve some kind of planetary-level consciousness, this will then spread and become galactic-level and so on. After that, we might be able to create countless wormholes through which information can pass and reach inter-universal level. Each universe a node, like a neuron in the brain. If one dies, there will be infinitely many others. The key to open-ended survival would seem to be redundancy, like redundant backups of your data. But really who knows what will happen to us. The point of living is the journey, not the destination.

>>10156604
Will do

The only problem for me in all of this isnt that I dont believe that the universe has no goal on its own, I just dont really enjoy being alive enough just to be alive and chase dopamine releases. Theres nothing I really want to chase anymore at this point in my life, and such even keeping myself alive is a struggle. My DNA is probably defective because I keep seeking something that doesnt exist. I should probably wipe myself from the gene pool.

>>10156613
Sounds pretty boring desu lol. Nice idea though

>>10156604
Save yourself some time and just watch this. But watch all the way to the end. The most important thing he says is the last thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edwYu20SMFc
>The universe has to be the way it is because there is no other possibility
You won't find meaning in the question of why reality exists or why it is the way that it is. Once you figure that out, you are still left with nothing. No reason to REMAIN IN reality. Maybe god had no choice in creating reality, but we still have the choice to leave it. Then again, maybe that's wrong. Considering how incredibly unlikely it is for any of us to be here experiencing reality, and yet we are still here despite that, suggests that it is also not possible not be alive; not be somewhere in some universe experiencing reality. It's possible we too don't have a choice, and that the second we die we're instantly reborn elsewhere. To my mind, the point of living in such a circumstance is to make life the best that it can be; to maintain it not abandon it, since you have no choice but to live anyway.

>>10156630
The universe's goal is the same as our goal: to live. There is so much that it takes to remain among the living. Think about climate change, think about the impending doom that will surely get our species in the end like it did so many others. If it won't be climate change, then it will certainly be something else. Challenge yourself. Find a cause and contribute to it.

I want to do something that would let me achieve change on a massive scale. Completely changing the human condition, for example. Going FTL, jumping into a black hole. Building a time machine. Maybe even destroying or mastering the universe as we know it, say, with that time machine or by making a massive black hole - wouldn't that be truly amazing? One ape that emerged on one tiny planet with a computer in its head that allowed it to achieve something on a scale so much bigger than itself, on the scale of galaxies. If not that, just discovering the secrets of the universe would be good enough - finding out if there really is a god ("god" being defined as the creator of the universe, or if this a simulation, then the being(s) running this simulation), if string theory really is correct, etc. It all sounds fantastical (and frankly juvenile), yes, but it's so much bigger than even the best of what you can "realistically" achieve. A consistently happy family, lots of experiences and memories, wealth, some big achievements (whatever's considered big in the bubble that you live in - maybe big enough to land your name among the greats like Newton). It's all so temporary, so fragile, and so small in the grand scheme of things. Life is cruel and unfair to most people and I just can't really enjoy it when I know there's so much suffering that I'm willingly blinding myself too, and when I can be quite sure that it'll probably crumble away sooner than I'd want it to - you can only plan for so much. One freak accident and there goes the empire you've built. One thing that you didn't plan for that comes to bite you at the worst time. Your plans for life and life's plans for you never match up.

Of course, one ape can't achieve that all on its own. Nothing I'd achieve would be purely my own doing - standing on the shoulders of giants and all, but I'd like to be among the final catalysts that jumpstarts humanity's biggest achievements to date.

>>10156652
Hell, even finding a way to preserve my brain long enough for it to see the future would be good enough. To see humanity thousands of years from now, for example (if humanity survives that long), maybe see someone else achieve something huge, like the ability to travel back in time. I guess I could look into cryopreservation...

>>10156575
The Singularity is humanity's cosmic goal.

>>10156639

Correct, but what if you dont respawn anywhere but at timepoint 1 of your same life? What if you are trapped here forever, becausw thats just the way things are? What if not even suicide is an escape?

>>10156652
>destroying...the universe as we know it
>wouldn't that be truly amazing
n- no?

>>10156661
It's possible. Me, I finally like myself for the first time in my life (did actually have a brush with suicidal ideation for about a year, but once that stopped I found a new zest for life) so I wouldn't mind living my exact life eternally.

>>10156639
>The most important thing he says is the last thing.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edwYu20SMFc [Open]
>>The universe has to be the way it is because there is no other possibility

Is that true though? Is there no possible consistent universe other than ours? (As in having different laws altogether)

Because that's such a bold statement.

Why couldnt say a 2D universe exist as well

>>10156652
As the Op, I'd like to ask: are you me? What the fuck, doppelganger

>>10156652
It's a matter of perspective. We are an anthill. The low hanging fruit have been picked off and we must increasingly rely on collective action to ensure more progress. That's why in a certain sense even a janitor is sort of like a Newton. It's all in how you look at things. All in all, progress is real. We've made huge advances and I believe (and yes this is a sort of faith, but you need faith to go on living) that this direction will continue.

>>10156643
>The universe's goal is the same as our goal: to live.
Universe doesnt have to struggle to "survive" though as far as I can tell?

>>10156670
I think that's not what he means. He simply just means that laws must be consistent, because if they weren't the universe would be unstable and we wouldn't be here. Perhaps there are other sets of laws that yield stable universes, and he doesn't rule it out, but there is likely to be a finite number of such configurations. Whatever they are, they must be self-consistent, not paradoxical or chaotic, which there are probably many more such possible configurations than there are orderly ones. The possibilities are the very least very limited.

>>10156678
Well, we are part of the universe. We in fact are the universe. So yes, the universe does have to struggle to survive.

>>10156683
Life is an occurrence within the universe, i'd have to think more about your statement. Do u maybe imply in some way that there is a will to survive at all scales? Electrons have a will to survive?

>>10156703
>Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest
Your thoughts are literally made of electrons. I dunno, you tell me.

>>10156652
you sound like you should be in the comments on a vsauce video instead. in fact, most people in this thread do

>>10156703
Really, I was only saying that if some things in the universe struggle to survive, it's not accurate to say that the universe does not struggle to survive, since some parts and aspects of it do indeed have to struggle to survive. To make the distinction between yourself, humanity or life and the rest of the surrounding universe is arbitrary. There is in fact no distinction there to be made. Therefore, it is wrong to say "the universe has no purpose" for the simple reason that some things in the universe (you and I) do have purposes. Everything is fluid. Everything is one and inseparable.

The Universe existing out of pure chance is the ultimate gambler's fallacy, because it assumes that given infinite time it HAS to "land" on probability zero.

>>10156577
>does god exist
>4channel, please tell me
You're asking the wrong people.

>>10157140
Who are the "right" people? Your local mullahs?

>>10157122
Not really, it's more like theres infinity of self consistent universes, only few can create conciousness, you just happen to live in one of the universes that do because you have to

>>10156720
I understand that but the will to survive could either be a biological coded imperative (like a ML score) or something inherent to the unit of the universe and theres no way to tell.

For instance Life could exist elsewhere than on Earth for a moment (eg Boltzmann brain sort of thing) but because that survival goal isnt coded in it dies right away

bump

>>10157347
But I was told that a finite number divided by infinity is zero. So there’s a zero chance of a life yielding universe.

>>10157441
>could either be a biological coded imperative
That's the best purpose, imperative or meaning you are ever gonna get. I really see no issue with it being evolutionarily caused or imprinted into us. Look at it like this instead: evolution is inherent to the structure of the universe.

>>10159165
>I really see no issue with it being evolutionarily caused or imprinted into us.

My issue is that if the will to survive is not inherent to the universe but only something that applies to us, then it's an arbitrary goal and it doesn't matter whether it is fulfilled or not.

When I say inherent, it means that it applies to most basic unit of the universe, like electrons and shit. Electrons don't evolve, so evolution by this definition isn't inherent to the universe. The structure of the universe doesn't evolve, there's only 1 iteration and that's that.

As for the will to survive, it's probably not inherent because there's a great variability amongst different people. Some might not have a great will to survive, others do. Natural selection favored / favors those with a strong will to survive. We struggle to survive because we're coded to. The universe doesn't struggle to survive, we're not the universe, we don't carry galaxies inside ourselves.

>>10156575
We don't know.
/thread

I had a pretty intense acid trip a few months ago and I came to the realization that consciousness could just be one large interconnected web that we all experience simultaneously; therefore it’s in our best interesting to improve the quality of life throughout this web. Then I googled it to see if anyone else had a similar idea and it turns out it’s a pretty common theory. Tl;dr: acid is for retards and provides no useful perspectives or insights.