Are Remarkable Coincidences Truly Random or Evidence of Design?

[octelcogopod]

Determinism make it impossible.

This is where I highly disagree with you, and I have to explain why.

If you look at the universe as a huge object of fundamental particles interacting, then it doesn't matter whether they are indterministic or deterministic, because they will not help nor disclude free will, as it were.
If indeteminism states that something compeletely random can happen, then it is not run by the choice of a person, otherwise it wouldn't be random, so what that means is that if something random happens, it will control whatever is physical, on the most fundamental level.

Since human choice is not primordial or fundamental in the universe, it will no doubt control that as well.
Same with determinism, if everything is determinsistic, everything is indeed controlled for us on the fundamental level.

The only (somewhat) other option I see for free will, is that it is an emergent property of determinism, where each person can control their own within a set of constraits, namely physics.
The most fundamental particles will still be controlled completely, but as consciousness and choice are emergent, we will indeed have free will, as for example our ability to choose whether or not to go to a party.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you mean "the odds of winning that lottery twice in two tries", which makes the odds deceptively larger -- if she plays 1000 times in her life (e.g. one ticket per week for 20 years), her odds of winning twice are a more reasonable one in 34 million.

Heh. Nice catch.

 

[russ_watters]

Who is to say that a scientific minded person is superior to one who thinks philosophically?

Perhaps I should have said logical. You appealed to logic in your OP, then made unequal assumptions. When I said unscientific, I was talking about the logical aspect of science.

To wit:

That fact that matter has come alive and started thinking makes me question as to whether all matter is alive and thinking, even matter that appears to be inorganic and inanimate.

And how is that logical? People aren't made up of single atoms. We can measure and observe that complex electrochemical reactions are occurring in our brains. It is not logical to conclude that neurons (much less protons) think, only that brains think.

Science requires evidence. There is no evidence that atoms, quarks, planets, etc. ever behave in a way that requires conscious thought. Ie, they don't ever disobey the laws of the universe.

Science, taking collectivly, is still ignorant of many many issues in the universe, so a "scientific" minded person would have to admit ignorance.

Since when is ignorance a crime and since when does science not acknowledge ignorance? If scientists truly believed they already knew everything, there'd be nothing to study and science would end.

I have heard many circumstances where "scientific minded" people have made assimptions...

Scientists are human and you're a pot calling the kettle black. Just because some scientists are bad scientists, doesn't make it ok for you to do the same thing.

...one being the universe thought of as being static, which was Eistein.

Huh? Since when did Einstein assume that? GR was a critical piece of the puzzle for explaining/proving the expansion.

[edit] - Oh, you're talking about the cosmological constant, right? Expansion was an untested prediction when he inserted that term into GR. When evidence showed up (Hubble) that showed expansion, Einstein immediately recognized it for what it was. Sure, he made a mistake based on a personal preconception. But he was logically/scientifically minded enough to recognize the evidence when he saw it.

Anyway, how is this relevent? Are you saying that if Einstein can be illogical that it is acceptable for you to do it? Especially considering that you claim to be arguing based on logic, it rings a little hollow to then argue that it is ok to not argue based on logic.

Besides, what you are doing is worse: you're inventing evidence to support your assumption. Or rather, you're taking evidence for one thing and applying it to something else, while at the same time the same observations of that other thing show nothing. I flip one light switch and a light in my living room goes on. Based on that, I conclude that another light also goes on - even though I can see that the light is still off!

Then there is the case of Hawkins who made the assumption that computer viruses were a form of life.

Do you have a source for that? Not that its relevant (see above) - I'm just curious.

Everyone makes assumptions it is human nature.

Certainly, its an endless struggle. Sometimes people are able to put their preconceptions aside and argue logically. And sometimes... So does this mean you are going to stop claiming you are arguing based on logic?

 

[Royce]

Then again, free will is, without a doubt, an result of the same genetics that predetermine our behaviors. For instance creating, inventing and designing are behaviors that are driven and determined by the naturally selected genes of humans. One could say that we are robots with those abilities because those abilities form the mechanisms that result in our survival.

While I agree that genetics, hormones etc influence our choices so do our state of mind and body at the moment and our history. The operative word is influence. They do not compel us to do anything unless we have a compulsive disorder. I am a smoker and addicted to nicotine but I am still not compelled to smoke. As Mark Twain said; "Quiting smoking is easy. I've done it hundreds of times." It is still a matter of conscious choice.

Anything that is programed by design or genes to certain behavior or operations is, IMO, incapable of creating or inventing anything. It has no free will and it's behavior is controlled and compelled. I don't think that such a thing could even be called a thinking being.

 

[Royce]

If you have some time, 15-20min read this "What is man", and tell me how would you refute his hypothesis? [you don't have to read all 125 pages, after 10 you will get the idea. Its mark twain so its worthy anyway.
(Its in a form of dialog)

http://books.google.com/books?vid=I...rk+twain+man&sig=iucS_89tX9Wk2ykvGFvtjjJff-8"

I was able to read only a few pages. Apparently I would have to buy the book at the link you gave us, but I think that I got the drift. However, I don't think that I read enough to refute his position other than by what I've been saying. A human is not a machine nor a computer. We are not compelled to do anything whereas a machine including computers can only respond one way to any given set of circumstances, we humans have a choice, free will.

We are getting way off the topic of this thread. If one of you want to start a determinism and/or freewill thread, I will certainly join in.

 

[Royce]

This is where I highly disagree with you, and I have to explain why.

If you look at the universe as a huge object of fundamental particles interacting, then it doesn't matter whether they are indeterministic or deterministic, because they will not help nor disclude free will, as it were.

You need to look up and study the philosophy and history of Determinism. It is an either/or option; ether the universe is completely deterministic or it is not deterministic.

If the Universe, including ourselves, is deterministic then our behavior, and choices are predetermined by the state of the universe at any given time which is predetermined by it's previous state all the way back to the Big Bang. This precludes freewill as we then have no choice in our behavior or choices be cause they are not free choices but predetermined by previous states.
This is not my opinion. It is the position of Determinists

If indeterminism states that something completely random can happen, then it is not run by the choice of a person, otherwise it wouldn't be random, so what that means is that if something random happens, it will control whatever is physical, on the most fundamental level.

Exactly. Determinists, including Physicalist, believe that we are controlled by fundamental physical states that are determined by previous physical states, that there is no such thing a a random event. If this is the case then as every action including thought is determined, there can be not such thing as freewill. I have argued the philosophy of freewill endlessly with determinists and physicalists here in numerous previous threads to no avail.

Since human choice is not primordial or fundamental in the universe, it will no doubt control that as well. Same with determinism, if everything is deterministic, everything is indeed controlled for us on the fundamental level.

Yes, that is the Determinism position.

The only (somewhat) other option I see for free will, is that it is an emergent property of determinism, where each person can control their own within a set of constraints, namely physics. The most fundamental particles will still be controlled completely, but as consciousness and choice are emergent, we will indeed have free will, as for example our ability to choose whether or not to go to a party.

The bold portion of your statement is a contradiction. If something is completely controlled at any level fundamental or conscious then by definition of the word controlled it is not free. Free implies not controlled. Also I disagree that consciousness and thus freewill are emergent properties. But that too is another topic suited for another new thread.

I realized that most of you have not been here at the philosophy section of Physics Forums nearly as long as I have so much of this is all new to you. We have gone over all of this many times previously. If you are really interested, go to the archives and do a search on the terms being used here or do a search for my ,Royce, posts or threads as I was involved in most of these topics over the last 3-4 years. I am not bragging nor trying to stop the discussions of these topics because I have already done this or said that before. I really think that some of them, while long winded, were very good and many good points were made on both sides. It may also give you a better understanding of the philosophies and terms involved. Most of us are lay philosophers, some formal philosophy students, but all of us opinionated and most fiercely so.

 

[octelcogopod]

I'm sorry but that's an assumption on your part about me.

I think you have the wrong definition of free will.
Free will is merely a persons conscious ability to make a choice, and this is supported in determinism if you consider that physics give rise to several emergent properties. (You still didn't argue why you disagreed with me on this point.)

You are saying that free will is a persons ability to make a choice without external control, but that is a logical error because either then choice is primordial/fundamental, or it is infinitely regressive.
The "universe" where the choice is made must still be controlled by something, otherwise it's random chaos.
You said free will is not controlled by anything but the mind, and especially not by physical properties, but how can that be?

The only two options we have is that either consciousness/free will came before physicality, and thus it created OR supervenes the physical, or consciousness/free will came AFTER physical properties and thus is controlled by it.

You can't have an inbetween there.
If you try to go inbetween and say consciousness came after physicality but is still not controlled by it, you end up in infinite regress.
This assumes that free will always was outside of the physical properties, thus the universe is irrelevant to its nature.

And about indeterminism.. The same applies to all of the above, it is completely irrelevant whether the universe has deterministic or indeterministic events, it doesn't phase your definition of free will at all.

 

[nannoh]

While I agree that genetics, hormones etc influence our choices so do our state of mind and body at the moment and our history. The operative word is influence. They do not compel us to do anything unless we have a compulsive disorder. I am a smoker and addicted to nicotine but I am still not compelled to smoke. As Mark Twain said; "Quiting smoking is easy. I've done it hundreds of times." It is still a matter of conscious choice.

Anything that is programed by design or genes to certain behavior or operations is, IMO, incapable of creating or inventing anything. It has no free will and it's behavior is controlled and compelled. I don't think that such a thing could even be called a thinking being.

Thank you Royce.

Influence is definitely - influencial - when it comes to behavior. I see the universe not as a design nor as an accident. It is more a "result" of trial and error.

If we look at what happens when there is an explosion or chaotic occurrence such as a landslide, at first the laws governing this event are basic and rely on fundimental mechanisms like gravity or combustion etc. Then it is possible to see that the components of the event begin to settle and organize according to weight, size, state and condition all under the influence of basic laws like gravity and turbulence and aerodynamics and so on.

Simlarily, the universe that exists today is a result of the "settling" and organization of the various components of what was borne out of a time of great chaotic influence. The laws of gravity, light and particle behavior were spawned during that period. How they settled and organized was determined by what behavior best survived through that time. The behaviors that did not comply with the basic laws simply do not exist today. What does survive today provides an example of what works in this environment. That would include our genetic predisposition to create, invent and design. Our genetics are some of the particles left over from a chaotic expulsion that are organized in such a way that they represent the result of 14 billion years of progressive composition. That, at least, is how I see it.

Thanks again.

 

[Royce]

I just did a Google search, philosophy, Determinism, and it came up with one of my and other's favorite scours of information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism"

Its a quick read and gives a good synopsis of Determinism with links to more detailed and deeper thinking.

 

[Royce]

I think you have the wrong definition of free will. Free will is merely a persons conscious ability to make a choice, and this is supported in determinism if you consider that physics give rise to several emergent properties. (You still didn't argue why you disagreed with me on this point.)

Sorry about the wrong assumption. You are arguing from a typical physicalist point of view. I do not hold that point of view.

You are saying that free will is a persons ability to make a choice without external control, but that is a logical error because either then choice is primordial/fundamental, or it is infinitely regressive.
The "universe" where the choice is made must still be controlled by something, otherwise it's random chaos.
You said free will is not controlled by anything but the mind, and especially not by physical properties, but how can that be?

The only two options we have is that either consciousness/free will came before physicality, and thus it created OR supervenes the physical, or consciousness/free will came AFTER physical properties and thus is controlled by it.

Yes, from my point of view, the physical is a result, an effect of creation not THE CAUSE of creation (No I am not a fundamental creationist). Consciousness, sentience, intent and will is the cause not the effect of the physical. essentially we are arguing for opposite sides of the spectrum and pointing in opposite directions.

You can't have an in between there.
If you try to go in between and say consciousness came after physicality but is still not controlled by it, you end up in infinite regress.

I agree

This assumes that free will always was outside of the physical properties, thus the universe is irrelevant to its nature.

No, it assumes that freewill is prime, the first cause, if you will, that created the physical universe not the other way around. And, we as part of that primal, eternal consciousness also have freewill as an intrinsic part of consciousness. I happen to call that primal consciousness, God, the designer and creator of the Universe. You of course can call it whatever you want.

And about indeterminism.. The same applies to all of the above, it is completely irrelevant whether the universe has deterministic or indeterministic events, it doesn't phase your definition of free will at all.

Some say it does, others that it doesn't. The later are called Compatablist.

 

[Royce]

Similarly, the universe that exists today is a result of the "settling" and organization of the various components of what was borne out of a time of great chaotic influence. The laws of gravity, light and particle behavior were spawned during that period. How they settled and organized was determined by what behavior best survived through that time. The behaviors that did not comply with the basic laws simply do not exist today. What does survive today provides an example of what works in this environment. That would include our genetic predisposition to create, invent and design. Our genetics are some of the particles left over from a chaotic expulsion that are organized in such a way that they represent the result of 14 billion years of progressive composition. That, at least, is how I see it.

Thanks again.

This is a new one for me. I think that it would be a variation of the Many Worlds or Infinite Universe position tied in with the Anthropological Position i.e.
this universe with this set of laws and properties is that which led to the universe as we know it and to us, so that is why and how we are here to ask "How" and "Why."

 

[PIT2]

Science requires evidence. There is no evidence that atoms, quarks, planets, etc. ever behave in a way that requires conscious thought. Ie, they don't ever disobey the laws of the universe.

Science cannot even prove that consciousness exists, so stating that there is no evidence that atom-behaviour requires conscious thought does not say anything about it being true or false. It merely states that science is incapable of finding out.

And conscious influence on matter does not need to disobey the laws of nature, unless one assumes both have nothing to do with each other, but they may well be the same thing. Our bodies definitely seem to require consciousness to function, and the claim that other matter doesn't is one that doesn't come from human knowledge but from human ignorance. Our knowlegde is that some matter does require it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Science cannot even prove that consciousness exists...

I'm not convinced this is true. I don't think there's any question that it exists - it is an empirical observation*. Though there's certainly a lot of question about its definition and extent.

*Likewise, we know that galaxy cohesion cannot be explained by gravity of the visible matter alone - this too is an empirical observation - even though we don't know the how and why of it.

 

[octelcogopod]

Royce,

You didn't really refute any of my points, I said that it assumes that free will is outside of the physicality of things, which is exactly the same as what you said

No, it assumes that freewill is prime, the first cause, if you will, that created the physical universe not the other way around. And, we as part of that primal, eternal consciousness also have freewill as an intrinsic part of consciousness. I happen to call that primal consciousness, God, the designer and creator of the Universe. You of course can call it whatever you want."

For it to have created the physical universe it would have had to be outside of it, how can it exist inside something which didn't exist because it wasn't created yet?

Then you say

Yes, from my point of view, the physical is a result, an effect of creation not THE CAUSE of creation (No I am not a fundamental creationist). Consciousness, sentience, intent and will is the cause not the effect of the physical. essentially we are arguing for opposite sides of the spectrum and pointing in opposite directions.

I proved my point that this doesn't make much sense earlier

The only two options we have is that either consciousness/free will came before physicality, and thus it created OR supervenes the physical, or consciousness/free will came AFTER physical properties and thus is controlled by it.

So in other words the burden of proof is on your shoulders to show that consciousness is prime.

Lastly you said this;

Some say it does, others that it doesn't. The later are called Compatablist.

I'm sorry but can you explain to me how free will can arise in a non deterministic system, using your definition that a free choice is something which is not controlled by the underlying system it is built on?

If free will under your definition is true, then it cannot have any kind of system.
This is because by logic, anything that exists must be built on an underlying system, unless you hit the fundamental.
However nobody is capable of imagining, or even synthesizing a fundamental in any shape or form, nor are they capable of applying this method in real life.

That's infinite regress for ya, always the damn zoom eh?

What I don't understand is how you can say free will is prime, when the only thing you have to go on is the innate feeling that you do indeed make your own choices.
So instead of studying the logical regress of events that lead up to your choice, you rather just assume some story about how free will/consciousness is prime and how it is eternal.

 

[PIT2]

I'm not convinced this is true. I don't think there's any question that it exists - it is an empirical observation*.

Im not saying that there is doubt whether it exists, just that we cannot show scientifically to anyone that we are conscious. For instance, if a robot states "i am conscious", then this isn't scientific evidence for it being conscious. So even though we have no doubt consciousness exists, science is not what brings that certainty.

 

[octelcogopod]

Im not saying that there is doubt whether it exists, just that we cannot show scientifically to anyone that we are conscious. For instance, if a robot states "i am conscious", then this isn't scientific evidence for it being conscious. So even though we have no doubt consciousness exists, science is not what brings that certainty.

IMO this is because we haven't learned how to properly analyse emergent systems.
Trying to analyze an ocean waves path by looking at a water molecule in the wave is somewhat the same as trying to see consciousness by studying the neurons in the brain.

We are able to see that it is a wave because our brains are made to logically put the water molecules into a coherent whole, it is thus my opinion that we need to learn how to properly combine body, world, perception and brain processes into one coherent consciousness.

IMO of course.

 

[Royce]

Royce,

You didn't really refute any of my points, I said that it assumes that free will is outside of the physicality of things, which is exactly the same as what you said

I didn't refute your points because I can't. We both, so far as I can tell, are arguing logically, but we hold different, opposite, premises. I did not imply that free will is "outside" of of physics but that it is before physical things. I'm a monist. There is only one. There is no inside or outside. I maintain that physical matter is the result of consciousness not that consciousness is the result of physical matter. IMO it is all one. If I must, I will say that everything and everyone is a part of the One, I call that One, God.

For it to have created the physical universe it would have had to be outside of it, how can it exist inside something which didn't exist because it wasn't created yet?

It is eternal, without beginning and without end. It created the universe out of and within itself. This is a logical necessity if there is only one, no outside or inside,
nothing is outside. All that is is of and inside the one universe or one god, whatever. If it created the physical then as you imply it must not be physical. I would call it metaphysical or spiritual for want of a better term.

I'm sorry but can you explain to me how free will can arise in a non deterministic system, using your definition that a free choice is something which is not controlled by the underlying system it is built on?

Freewill did not arise, is not emergent, but is a property of sentient, intelligent, consciousness. A mind thinks. It reasons more or less logically. It come up with new thoughts and ideas at least to itself. It make choices based on it own volition, its own will, purpose and intent. If it had no freewill, freedom of thought, choice and action it could not come up with anything new or original or do anything that it was not preprogrammed or predetermined to do.

If free will under your definition is true, then it cannot have any kind of system.
This is because by logic, anything that exists must be built on an underlying system, unless you hit the fundamental.

The system of mentality, intelligence, sentient consciousness, whatever you want to call it, is logic which include mathematics and reasoning. Our logic is the same it is our premises that are at opposite ends of the spectrum of thought. This is why you think that my beliefs are total chaos and why I think yours are, why I assumed that you were not familiar with the terms of Determinism.

However nobody is capable of imagining, or even synthesizing a fundamental in any shape or form, nor are they capable of applying this method in real life.

That's infinite regress for ya, always the damn zoom eh?

What I don't understand is how you can say free will is prime, when the only thing you have to go on is the innate feeling that you do indeed make your own choices.
So instead of studying the logical regress of events that lead up to your choice, you rather just assume some story about how free will/consciousness is prime and how it is eternal.

It is the absurdities that infinite regression leads to that, in part, led me to my set of beliefs. It is also the unsupportable positions of Hard Determinism and Physicalism, as well as the paradoxes and contradictions that they inevitable lead to that brought me to the point of examined alternate premises. Dualism was the first alternate choice that I came to, but Dualism doesn't hold under my firm conviction that all is one, one is all that is, which arose from my study and practice of Zen Buddhism. Incidentally many Buddhist are and were materialist, what we call physicalist now.

To quote Spock, "If your logic is correct and your conclusion is impossible, check your Premise."

And, Sherlock Holmes, "After you eliminate all that is impossible, only the truth remains." (or something like that)

 

[Tojen]

Sorry for the late reply but I missed your post yesterday...

It is just another indication that the Universe is ever changing and evolving in many ways that we cannot fathom or even know.

That doesn't answer the question at all (which was something like, "How does the existence of life on Earth change the Universe?"), but it sure skirts it in a mysterious, religious-like way. If you can't fathom the Universe, how can you know it has changed?

Well put! I don't have an answer only opinions and beliefs. I think that individual life is not a concern but life itself over the entire universe may be. Without getting into religious beliefs this seems to be a reasonable belief.

We all have opinions and beliefs, but not all of us seem to base them on our extremely limited observations. Again, what observations have you made that lead you to believe we have changed the Unviverse?

 

[Royce]

Tojen,
Its very simple.
We are a part of the Universe.
If we change, die or disappear then part of the Universe changes, dies or disappears.
The Earth is part of the Universe.
We change the Earth and change part of the Universe.
If any part of the universe changes, the entire Universe changes.

 

[nannoh]

This is a new one for me. I think that it would be a variation of the Many Worlds or Infinite Universe position tied in with the Anthropological Position i.e.
this universe with this set of laws and properties is that which led to the universe as we know it and to us, so that is why and how we are here to ask "How" and "Why."

I don't think its a new idea to say that what we observe as the universe today is a result of many trials and errors. There are conditions, laws, states and behaviors that work, and those are still around. There were behaviors, laws, states and conditions that were too unstable to survive and so they are no longer in existence (in this universe).

There is a paradox seen where the surviving laws we observe today are probably a result of the laws and states that didn't make it. What survives as Conservational Law, Gravitational law etc. are most likely synthesized out of less efficient states.

This model is observable today in the way society refines laws and conditions that were, at one time, rough approximations of what we have now. And the laws and conditions we have today will be refined even further if time permits. Sometimes the refinements survive and sometimes the refinements are dismantled and synthesized into better working models. And so on.

These functions can only be said to be "design" or "accident" by the observer who holds the precepts of "design and/or "accident". A simpler explanation is to label the process "nature" or "cause and effect". But "cause and effect" are interchangable in any function and therefore should be reduced to "result".

 

[Tojen]

Tojen,
Its very simple.
We are a part of the Universe.
If we change, die or disappear then part of the Universe changes, dies or disappears.
The Earth is part of the Universe.
We change the Earth and change part of the Universe.
If any part of the universe changes, the entire Universe changes.

Pardon me for being dense, but I was hoping we were talking about something more fundamental, not in the way a bug splatted on a windshield "changes" a car.

So every time we swat a mosquito, or unknowingly step on an ant, take a bite of a sandwich, move a finger, take a breath, vomit, etc, etc., we're channging the Universe. Even the involuntary things we do, like losing skin cells and growing hair, change the Universe. That just cheapens the meaning of "change" to such an extent that it becomes meaningless. (As in Hawking's lofty statement that by observing a single electron, we change the Universe.)

 

[Royce]

Well if you want more lofty changes, consider that we as conscious, sentient beings are the first step in the Universe becoming conscious and sentient itself. That is, of course, assuming that we are the first; but, it still holds if we but one of many. The universe is becoming conscious, sentient and self-aware. Hows that for an emergent property?

 

[nannoh]

Pardon me for being dense, but I was hoping we were talking about something more fundamental, not in the way a bug splatted on a windshield "changes" a car.

So every time we swat a mosquito, or unknowingly step on an ant, take a bite of a sandwich, move a finger, take a breath, vomit, etc, etc., we're channging the Universe. Even the involuntary things we do, like losing skin cells and growing hair, change the Universe.

Yes. I think its called Chaos theory. You know, when a butterfly's wings flap on Mars it creates universal changes resulting in a wind that throws a mosquito into your windshield. If you don't like the theory, change it by proving otherwise. A cautionary note, if you succeed in changing the theory, you will still be changing the universe.

 

[Royce]

nannoh, so your theory is that not only has the universe evolved but the physical laws and values themselves have evolved via natural selection?
I understand the many worlds idea each with different laws and parameters. Some make it and some don't.
From reading your post I got the impression that your taking about one universe evolving these laws and parameters by trail and error until it came up with the one that works, so far, and here we are.
This implies, to me at least, that there is some driving force or purpose to it. Why else would the laws change until it got it "right."

 

[Tojen]

Further to my last post, which (I think) will answer both Royce and nannoh...

The Universe is change. Electrons are getting knocked around constantly throughout the whole cosmos by unconscious processes but that doesn't change the nature of the Universe. By responding predictably to another force, they are helping to define the Universe as it is, not change it. Our little actions would be significant only if they didn't change anything.

 

[nannoh]

This implies, to me at least, that there is some driving force or purpose to it. Why else would the laws change until it got it "right."

As we already know "purpose" is relative to the observer. What we think of as "universal laws" (though no one has observed the whole universe to be able to call them that) are always changing and refining and being dismantled and rebuilt. The laws from which human kind and life itself have emerged are never "right or wrong" because right or wrong are relative only to the observer.

Saying the universe "got it right" when it produced the emergence of life is a good example of your individual freedom of "choice". It demonstrates that you are able to maintain a position in the universe and are able to voice your opinion about it. No small feat.

 

[PIT2]

That doesn't answer the question at all (which was something like, "How does the existence of life on Earth change the Universe?"), but it sure skirts it in a mysterious, religious-like way. If you can't fathom the Universe, how can you know it has changed?

This weeks Newscientist has an article about retrocausality (the present influencing the past). In it, there is a section where Paul Davis describes what retrocausality could mean for life on earth. He says the universe may be fine tuned for life, because life itself is finetuning it. The reasoning goes something like this: in the first moments after the big bang, the laws of nature weren't fixed, they were wobbly, and if retrocausality is possible then conscious observers right now may be influencing the wobbly era and shaping the laws of nature. His exact words can be read here

We all have opinions and beliefs, but not all of us seem to base them on our extremely limited observations. Again, what observations have you made that lead you to believe we have changed the Unviverse?

One can see how we have changed the universe by just looking around. Humans have transformed the planet in the past 100 years, even though our brains haven't changed much in the same timespan.

Even the involuntary things we do, like losing skin cells and growing hair, change the Universe. That just cheapens the meaning of "change" to such an extent that it becomes meaningless. (As in Hawking's lofty statement that by observing a single electron, we change the Universe.)

I don't think this cheapens the meaning of "change", but puts it in the right perspective. If this were not "change" then universal events arent either. Even if by "change" u mean changing the laws of nature, then observing an electron would qualify so long as one assumes these laws are part of the things they are changing, as opposed to assuming these laws exist in a platonic realm.

Our actions (like squashing an ant) may seem tiny compared to the rest of the universe, but can have giant implications for what the universe actually is. Compare it to a boy that enters a room which is completely red. Then he finds a tiny blue dot on a wall. Even though the dot is tiny, it does have fundamental implications for the entire room: the entire room is not fundamentaly red.

 

[Tojen]

Yes. I think its called Chaos theory. You know, when a butterfly's wings flap on Mars it creates universal changes resulting in a wind that throws a mosquito into your windshield. If you don't like the theory, change it by proving otherwise. A cautionary note, if you succeed in changing the theory, you will still be changing the universe.

I won't argue with the theory, just your example. A butterfly on Mars is impossible. I think you meant "a butterfly on Earth can set in motion events that lead to a hurricane" as I've heard it, which is at least possible, though the chances of it happening are so remote they're laughable. Now compare that with the chances of a butterfly causing a supernova, or even affecting a single atom, 10 billion light years away.

Did I just change the Universe?

 

[Tojen]

One can see how we have changed the universe by just looking around. Humans have transformed the planet in the past 100 years, even though our brains haven't changed much in the same timespan.

I can see how we've changed some things on Earth, but not the entire Universe. I can also see how the forces of nature have changed the Earth unconsciously.

I'm guessing the rest of the Universe looks the same as it would have if I hadn't been born.

I don't think this cheapens the meaning of "change", but puts it in the right perspective. If this were not "change" then universal events arent either. Even if by "change" u mean changing the laws of nature, then observing an electron would qualify so long as one assumes these laws are part of the things they are changing, as opposed to assuming these laws exist in a platonic realm.

Our actions (like squashing an ant) may seem tiny compared to the rest of the universe, but can have giant implications for what the universe actually is. Compare it to a boy that enters a room which is completely red. Then he finds a tiny blue dot on a wall. Even though the dot is tiny, it does have fundamental implications for the entire room: the entire room is not fundamentaly red.

My squashing an ant changes the configuration of matter and energy in the ant. So would a rock if it fell on the ant. Would you say the rock has changed the Universe?

To me, your red room implies a static Universe with a single anomaly. To me, the room would better represent the Universe if blue dots were appearing and disappearing constantly (representing all the changes that happen in the Universe). Now the dots are a fundamental property of the room, just as change is a fundamental property of the Universe, conscious or not.

(I haven't had time to look at the Newscientist article, but I'll get to it.)

 

[nannoh]

Our little actions would be significant only if they didn't change anything.

As far as I know "significance" is in the eye of the signifier (observer).