What is the purpose of sentient life?

[a4mula]

There is no real purpose to life. Life is just the result of a series of events; you can give life a mundane purpose, but there is no universal/divine purpose of life. As Steven Weinberg once said, "We are not actors in a drama that has been written with us playing the staring role... We are the result of billions of years of accidents."

Here is Steven Weinberg's view on the purpose of life:

I have a lot of respect for Weinberg. Fundamentally everything that that you've said is correct. I think however that by taking this overarching view of the lack of a universal/divine purpose one is missing the obvious.

Perhaps our existence is merely the sum of billions of years worth of accidents (I prefer adaptions but it's only semantical). Does that however diminish the value that any individual system provides? I like using ants, bees, and trees as examples because it's easy for us to see the direct value they provide. It's difficult to say that these systems don't have a purpose. Their purpose is evident.

Just because we're unable to see the purpose that we serve does not mean it's non-existent. Every example we see in our reality (not just nature) has purpose. Is it part of some greater scheme, some overarching cosmic plan? It doesn't need to be. Our universe is entropic. The higher the order the less the entropy. Does that not by it's own definition determine that we must serve a purpose?

I'd implore anyone interested in this concept to study Fractal Geometry, Chaos Theory, and how phi is represented over and over in our universe. There need not be a divine purpose. The laws that govern our universe fill that need on their own.

 

[WaveJumper]

Our purpose is linked to the laws of physics for it is these laws alone that have given rise to us. If we were not required in the great scheme of the universe, then physics wouldn't have came together to form the first lifeform on this planet.

Sorry, that makes no sense.

I find it somewhat annoying that certain physicists so hastily try to dismiss any and all effort to find meaning in the existence of the universe. It's almost like a frantic religious movement seeking to prove that life is meaningless.

If the laws of physics weren't what they are, we wouldn't be here and there wouldn't be a universe for us to describe. I strongly believe sentient life is a part of the equations and the laws of physics are the language of god(though god may very likely be not what most people imagine).

If one cannot explain where the laws of physics came from, I wonder why they would even bother to make the sweeping generalisation that the existence of the universe is objectively meaningless?

 

[Kronos5253]

Nature is not an entity, it's a label. Evolution is not an entity, it's a label. We have created these concepts to help explain the world around us. We know that through random mutations any given life form will either a) become more fit, b) become less fit, or c) have no change in their fitness.

If that life form becomes more fit then it has a higher rate of survival and a greater chance to reproduce and pass that mutation to it's offspring. That's it. That's evolution in a nutshell. Natural selection and survival of the fittest. It's just a label we've stuck on that process. Evolution does not imbue life with anything. Mutations do.




I'd like to say that I'm seeing what you're getting at here, but the truth is I'm just not getting it. We as a species have always had some form of consciousness even if it was less then we possesses today. Never was it at the level of nothing, which a rock can claim. If you're referring to our biological ancestors of lipids and proteins then I think you might be missing one critical difference.

The chemical stew that sparked life on this planet was capable of recomposing it's makeup. A rock is not. A rock may weather, it might be smoothed by a river, but it's composition never changes. It is incapable of adaptation. The chemicals floating around that started this entire "life event" didn't require consciousness. It is not a prerequisite for life. It merely required probability, and the ability to adapt.

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment" experiment was conducted in 1952. It shows how base chemicals can come together to create amino acids required for life. It's an interesting study that goes a long way towards supporting the the theory of Evolution.

I think you might be missing something here..

Nature itself is not a concept that we created. The word we use to describe nature, and the word nature itself is a label. But nature exists outside of humans, so how can nature only be a concept that we created? Nature itself is an entity, it has a rhythem, and energy of it's own.

Evolution does not imbue life with anything. Mutations do.

I don't necessarly agree, because mutations ARE evolution. The mutations create the differences within an organism that help it to survive the environment that it's in, and that process we call evolution.

 

[Evo]

I find it somewhat annoying that certain physicists so hastily try to dismiss any and all effort to find meaning in the existence of the universe. It's almost like a frantic religious movement seeking to prove that life is meaningless.

If the laws of physics weren't what they are, we wouldn't be here and there wouldn't be a universe for us to describe. I strongly believe sentient life is a part of the equations and the laws of physics are the language of god(though god may very likely be not what most people imagine).

If one cannot explain where the laws of physics came from, I wonder why they would even bother to make the sweeping generalisation that the existence of the universe is objectively meaningless?

The laws of physics were here billions of years before we were and will continue to exist long after we are gone. We are not necessary for the laws of physics to exist. Why are so many people so afraid to accept that we most likely are nothing more than a freak accident?

 

[a4mula]

I think you might be missing something here..

Nature itself is not a concept that we created. The word we use to describe nature, and the word nature itself is a label. But nature exists outside of humans, so how can nature only be a concept that we created? Nature itself is an entity, it has a rhythem, and energy of it's own.

I don't want to make this a debate of attrition or semantics, but this is an important concept in my opinion. Nature does not exist. Animals exist. Plants exists. Rivers exist. Mountains exist. Bacteria exist. While it's true all the things I've just listed are also "labels" they're attached to objects that are real. Nature however is not real, it's abstract. It's a concept that emcompasses all of the things that I mentioned. It's not real and cannot have any life-like qualities such as rhythm or energy.

I don't necessarly agree, because mutations ARE evolution. The mutations create the differences within an organism that help it to survive the environment that it's in, and that process we call evolution.

It's good to not agree. It stimulates conversation that in turn stimulates thought. If I end up sticking around this forum for any amount of time you'll notice a trend. I'll state many different contradicting points of view. I like the debate. I like playing Devil's Advocate to extract the maximum amount of consideration from a topic.

As far as mutations equating to evolution. We don't call an engine in a vehicle the car. Mutation is a part of evolution that entails other aspects such as survival and selective breeding. Again, Mutation is real. Evolution is abstract. We can find mutations under the microscope, we'll never find evolution there however.

 

[a4mula]

The laws of physics were here billions of years before we were and will continue to exist long after we are gone. We are not necessary for the laws of physics to exist. Why are so many people so afraid to accept that we most likely are nothing more than a freak accident?

Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? If anything the fact that life (against all odds mind you, entropy... ) has managed to come together, regardless of how, would seem to indicate that there is order amongst chaos in the universe and that there is purpose.

Everything we study shows purpose. Why are we special in the sense that we do not have a role to play? Is that really the case, or are we just unable to see it?

 

[WaveJumper]

The laws of physics were here billions of years before we were and will continue to exist long after we are gone.

True but we still don't have a good grasp of this puzzling notion - Time. 14 Billions of years can be 4 seconds in the right frame of reference. Even distance is a human concept that gets challenged by both SR and QM.

We are not necessary for the laws of physics to exist.

But those laws are here. What purpose would F=m.a serve if we were not here? It's a law of classical physics and without us the classical world would simply not exist. So what/who put this classical law in place that obviously serves no other purpose than to provide the right environment for sentient life to exist(in the classical/macro domain)?

Why are so many people so afraid to accept that we most likely are nothing more than a freak accident?

On a personal level, i don't agree this statement fits all the observations.

 

[Evo]

But those laws are here. What purpose would F=m.a serve if we were not here?

The same as if we weren't here.

It's a law of classical physics and without us the classical world would simply not exist.

What? No law of physics sprang into existence when we appeared on the planet.

So what/who put this classical law in place that obviously serves no other purpose than to provide the right environment for sentient life to exist(in the classical/macro domain)?

No "thing" had to put anything into place.

 

[WaveJumper]

But those laws are here. What purpose would F=m.a serve if we were not here?

The same as if we weren't here.

I don't think so. When we are here, F=m.a is one of the classical laws that provides the framework for the existence of this orderly and predictable classical world. If we weren't here, F=m.a would serve no purpose, since an orderly and predictable environment is not necessary in world devoid of life. In fact, the predictability of the classical world and the friendliness of the fundamental constants towards life is a puzzling situation for those believing that the universe is a fluke.

It's a law of classical physics and without us the classical world would simply not exist.

What? No law of physics sprang into existence when we appeared on the planet.

True, but the classical world is a sub-domain of this otherwise quantum universe. It's only us , the sentient beings, that perceive the universe as a solid, physical object. Without us, what we term 'the universe' is just quantum fields. The notion of a classical world would exist for as long as sentient beings exist. Those quantum fields would probably continue to act "classically" even if we are not around, but what does it matter? Imagine there were a stick made from an other worldly substance that did not interact with the electromagnetic force. Would this stick 'notice' if the quantum fields within our universe exhibited a classical behaviour by constituting/forming a classical object like a Moon or an Earth? It's the same with neutrinos - do they 'notice' the classical world when they pass right through the Earth and then right through the Sun? From their POV(if it were possible), does a classical universe exist?

So what/who put this classical law in place that obviously serves no other purpose than to provide the right environment for sentient life to exist(in the classical/macro domain)?

No "thing" had to put anything into place.

Yet it is in place. In order to be able to answer the question in the OP, we need to consider the issue in its broadest sense. That includes tackling the thorny question of the origin of the laws of physics and why they are here.

 

[Evo]

I don't think so. When we are here, F=m.a is one of the classical laws that provides the framework for the existence of this orderly and predictable classical world. If we weren't here, F=m.a would serve no purpose, since an orderly and predictable environment is not necessary in world devoid of life.

Nonsense. You are stating that the laws of physics aren't necessary without humans. I think you need to stop and think about that.

If we weren't here, obviously we wouldn't need to name it, but that applies to everything, doesn't it? What impact does us naming anything have on what happens in the universe? Nothing. What is represented by what we call the law of motion exists without us, as does every other "law". We have no significance outside of what ever we want to claim. Does it impact anything else? No.

 

[Kiwi-lad]

As my friend Jay Fitzgerald wrote: "The choice to exist is inherently irrational".

 

[Blenton]

The laws of physics were here billions of years before we were and will continue to exist long after we are gone. We are not necessary for the laws of physics to exist. Why are so many people so afraid to accept that we most likely are nothing more than a freak accident?

You have a very bleak outlook. I thought about the whole nothingness argument, we're mistakes etc etc, then i think about the rest of the universe. Laws of gravitation explain why planets and stars form, its not a freak occurrence. It was done because the system is in a lower state of energy (dont go quoting relativity if this is incorrect).

Higher laws of physics will explain why we form. Why the forces come together and form life. We see it as a freak occurrence, and while the variation of life may be seen as random because of the sheer number of factors involved, at the simplest base ~ amino acids, DNA etc which were all required for our life HAD reason if I can only explain it in the same reason of why planets form.

 

[WaveJumper]

Nonsense. You are stating that the laws of physics aren't necessary without humans. I think you need to stop and think about that.

If we weren't here, obviously we wouldn't need to name it, but that applies to everything, doesn't it? What impact does us naming anything have on what happens in the universe? Nothing. What is represented by what we call the law of motion exists without us, as does every other "law". We have no significance outside of what ever we want to claim. Does it impact anything else? No.

I said only the laws of classical physics were not necessary if there were no sentient beings to experience the classical world. Not all laws of physics.

Anyway, there is a principal difference in our opinions - you seem to adhere to the school of thought that posits that blind chaos and randomness can create strict beautiful physical laws that have the ability to hold for tens of billions of years. Those same laws that created us. When i open up a quantum physics textbook, i don't view the thousand equations and correlations that describe only a part of our reality, as something random, worthless and unnecessary. I view those highly complex equations as the language of god, the code behind the experience of reality. You say it's random, OK. But this is just a belief, to me it's more like a belief in miracles that i can find no justification for. (and i am an atheist towards any and all religions).


It's worthy of a separate title/topic but anyway - could anyone propose an idea why there is a classical world at all? (beside the obvious - for sentient life to emerge and experience it). And i should have said "an appearance of a classical world" аs it only appears so.

String theorists have moved in the right direction comparing vibrating strings to the strings of a musical instrument. Strings create harmony because there is inherent harmony in reality everywhere, at all times and those strings are said to vibrate in "strange" unison to create what we experience. If there was only bleak dark chaos in the quantum fields, i'd agree that some sort of an emergent classical "world" could be a random event. But those fields have certain "emergent" properties and abilities to create a structured and predictable classical world and their very un-random dance creates such harmony that one has to be blind to miss it. There has to be an underlying reality to account for all this perceived orderliness and harmony. QM can provide no answers why certain states are selected from all the eigenstates and i definitely don't believe god is playing dice.

BTW, if the classical world wasn't intended for sentient beings like us(i.e. was completely random), why is it so comprehensible in such great details? Is this pure luck or is it something else?

 

[a4mula]

I said only the laws of classical physics were not necessary if there were no sentient beings to experience the classical world. Not all laws of physics.

Anyway, there is a principal difference in our opinions - you seem to adhere to the school of thought that posits that blind chaos and randomness can create strict beautiful physical laws that have the ability to hold for tens of billions of years. Those same laws that created us. When i open up a quantum physics textbook, i don't view the thousand equations and correlations that describe only a part of our reality, as something random, worthless and unnecessary. I view those highly complex equations as the language of god, the code behind the experience of reality. You say it's random, OK. But this is just a belief, to me it's more like a belief in miracles that i can find no justification for. (and i am an atheist towards any and all religions).


It's worthy of a separate title/topic but anyway - could anyone propose an idea why there is a classical world at all? (beside the obvious - for sentient life to emerge and experience it). And i should have said "an appearance of a classical world" аs it only appears so.

String theorists have moved in the right direction comparing vibrating strings to the strings of a musical instrument. Strings create harmony because there is inherent harmony in reality everywhere, at all times and those strings are said to vibrate in "strange" unison to create what we experience. If there was only bleak dark chaos in the quantum fields, i'd agree that some sort of an emergent classical "world" could be a random event. But those fields have certain "emergent" properties and abilities to create a structured and predictable classical world and their very un-random dance creates such harmony that one has to be blind to miss it. There has to be an underlying reality to account for all this perceived orderliness and harmony. QM can provide no answers why certain states are selected from all the eigenstates and i definitely don't believe god is playing dice.

BTW, if the classical world wasn't intended for sentient beings like us(i.e. was completely random), why is it so comprehensible in such great details? Is this pure luck or is it something else?

I see both sides of this coin. On one hand we know that highly complex systems will evolve from very simple initial starting conditions ("[URL automaton[/URL], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory" .

Let's consider two opposite ends of the spectrum. On one hand we have Order. In ordered systems very little change takes place. Entropy is at the absolute minimum. While this might sound like a utopia to some, in reality it's a pretty dull place. One of the driving factors for evolution of course is change. In ordered systems change comes at such a slow rate that it would not be a very viable place for life. We thrive on diversity.

On the other hand we have Chaotic systems. Entropy is high and the only constant is change. In true chaotic systems (note, this is different than complex systems) life is not possible either. In this type system the basic laws of physics would not even exist. Consider the initial conditions of the big bang, or the singularity of black holes.

As these chaotic systems lose energy they naturally come to rest in more ordered systems. What was once an open system diverges into multiple closed systems. We know that in closed systems entropy is no longer the driving force. Now we're getting somewhere.

This is where the complex system fits in. Closed systems that border on chaos, that have not yet fallen into an entirely ordered state. Here we maximize the potential of evolution by introducing "ordered chaos", change that is dictated by a ruleset. The ruleset is a byproduct of these systems converging towards order.

This supports both the topdown view of creation (bigbang) as well as the bottom up approach that we see when we look at patterns of creation. It's eloquent to say the least. While this doesn't solve our purpose, it should allow us to at least concede that the laws that govern our existence are indepedent of both our existence, as well as their own!

 

[Coldcall]

The only possible purpose for biology in this universe is that the universe fails to exist as a reality without it. Perhaps we should consider biology as an emergent though causal factor in the universal reality we experience.

People talk of top-down or bottom-up approaches. Let's look at the most sophisticated bottom-up approach we can see delivered by nature; evolution. Its complexity is stunning and appears telelogical but in fact has come about through billions of years of feedback trial and error.

So we see nature uses bottom-up almost as a default, at least in the process of evolution. So why would nature not use the same bottom-up approach for universal creation? What if the evoltuionary process we have noted in biology is actually just a continuation of the same process engineering which created the universe in the first place?

Some people may think that's crazy. I see no other logical alternative.

 

[Red Fox]

My outlook on this question is that the concept of "purpose" does not exist outside of the conceptual world of humans. Purpose is not some inherent quality attached to each object, atom, etc., it is a word and a concept that we have invented. I don't think you can apply the concept of purpose (or, in my opinion, any concept) in such a grand context.

 

[a4mula]

The only possible purpose for biology in this universe is that the universe fails to exist as a reality without it. Perhaps we should consider biology as an emergent though causal factor in the universal reality we experience.

People talk of top-down or bottom-up approaches. Let's look at the most sophisticated bottom-up approach we can see delivered by nature; evolution. Its complexity is stunning and appears telelogical but in fact has come about through billions of years of feedback trial and error.

So we see nature uses bottom-up almost as a default, at least in the process of evolution. So why would nature not use the same bottom-up approach for universal creation? What if the evoltuionary process we have noted in biology is actually just a continuation of the same process engineering which created the universe in the first place?

Some people may think that's crazy. I see no other logical alternative.

When we look at our local level we know that everything is built from this bottom up process. Intuitively it would lead us to the conclusion that everything shares this same mechanism. The evidence does not support that however. When we step back and consider it a little further, while intuitive it's not very logical.

How do you "build" a planet? If it's merely the sum of it's parts then you run into a problem. The parts (us, animals, plants ect) require the planet to be formed before they can exist. Evolution creates the framework that supports life as life itself is created, planets however do not.

We want everything to be explained in a neat package. I've referred often to these systems that begin from simple starting conditions to form extremely complex systems. They're beautiful and I personally cannot help but be drawn to how elegant the concept is. It's alluring to think that at the very heart of our reality is a single pattern/algorithm/formula that is used to express everything.

At this particular moment, and it's quite likely to change as my thoughts and opinions often do, I lean towards the concept that our laws do not define our reality. These laws are merely a byproduct of systems coming to a natural resting state of order. Different systems have different laws and while there might be common ground among all of them, they are not inherently compatible. That is to say there is no single defining pattern to it all.

I've personally come full circle during this thread. My thoughts on it started that purpose was defined only by the individual. As I considered the patterns of nature I felt like maybe we did serve a higher, yet unseeable, purpose. Now that I dismiss these patterns as being unrelated I come back to the concept that we are just cosmic correlations.

 

[Coldcall]

"How do you "build" a planet? If it's merely the sum of it's parts then you run into a problem. The parts (us, animals, plants ect) require the planet to be formed before they can exist. Evolution creates the framework that supports life as life itself is created, planets however do not."

This is a good point. And is what is at the heart of the telelogical question in biology. One thing that perhaps adds weight to telelogical arguments in biology is how we now know that biological functions also provide important feedback which send signals back to our dna gene expression, in order that for instance it produce more or less proteins of a type which create ion pathways. These control muscle and nerve activity.

I hope I've not miseld anyone into thinking evolution and biology are totally bottom-up processes. They seem to have developed a signal bi-directionality which is what perhaps makes biology so special compared to the rest of the matter in the universe.

You're right its very confusing subject :-)

 

[SDetection]

I hope I've not miseld anyone into thinking evolution and biology are totally bottom-up processes. They seem to have developed a signal bi-directionality which is what perhaps makes biology so special compared to the rest of the matter in the universe.

You're right its very confusing subject :-)

IMHO, I think biology is abstraction of chemistry which is by itself abstraction of physics.
In regard to mathematics, I think it's the practical way to predict what might happen in Time.

 

[Kein]

IMHO, I think biology is abstraction of chemistry which is by itself abstraction of physics.
In regard to mathematics, I think it's the practical way to predict what might happen in Time.

No, you made a selfish abstraction over other fields, physics is not chemistry and chemistry is not biology. Human life contains spiritual values that can not be replaced by a math formula. And mathematics is not at all about Time.

 

[SDetection]

No, you made a selfish abstraction over other fields, physics is not chemistry and chemistry is not biology. Human life contains spiritual values that can not be replaced by a math formula. And mathematics is not at all about Time.

Before we continue, I must warn you that I'm going to learn from you and then trick you and make you put your own gun against your head .
Do you still want to go on? .

 

[Count Iblis]

Sentient life occurs, it can influence the game but what should it decide to do?

It cannot influence anything because the very same laws of physics that govern everything also apply to these sentient beings. What happens is that the sentient beings have some awareness about their surroundings and then it feels to them as if they have a choice to do one thing or another thing. But that feeling arises from the fact that you can have two different brain states giving rise to the same subjective awareness that will result in two different actions in the near future.

 

[SDetection]

It cannot influence anything because the very same laws of physics that govern everything also apply to these sentient beings.

Yes, I don't believe in free will either, because I think future events are only triggered by past ones.

 

[Coldcall]

Sdetection,

"IMHO, I think biology is abstraction of chemistry which is by itself abstraction of physics.
In regard to mathematics, I think it's the practical way to predict what might happen in Time."

Thats the bottom-up reductionist line, but i prefer taking a more systems approach to biology, and complexity in general. Thats not to knock reductionism but its clear that as the universe has evolved new properties and laws have emerged. And though they evolved from simpler basic beginnings (the reductionist approach) the whole is now greater than the sum of its parts.

Its why i argue that purpose or teleology has in fact emerged from nature's own hand. This does not mean nature herself is telelogical but she instead took billions of years to blindly create telelogical systems such as humans.

We are as natural a phenomenom as stars; hence telelogical functionality is at least indirectly also a product of the universe.

 

[SDetection]

Thats not to knock reductionism but its clear that as the universe has evolved new properties and laws have emerged.

Hi, I'm not getting that, which laws that have emerged?.

And though they evolved from simpler basic beginnings (the reductionist approach) the whole is now greater than the sum of its parts.

How the "whole is now greater than the sum of its parts' ?, could you give me an example?.

 

[Coldcall]

SDetection:

"Hi, I'm not getting that, which laws that have emerged?"

The laws and forces in the universe have all emerged from the BB. As a simple example: Electro-magnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces all emerged from a unified force as the universe cooled post BB.

"How the "whole is now greater than the sum of its parts' ?, could you give me an example?"

All biology is a whole greater than the sum of its parts. A simple test is to ask yourself whether by understanding an atom you understand how the human body functions? The answer is No. So a human is greater than the sum of his/her parts.

 

[a4mula]

SDetection:

"Hi, I'm not getting that, which laws that have emerged?"

The laws and forces in the universe have all emerged from the BB. As a simple example: Electro-magnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces all emerged from a unified force as the universe cooled post BB.

"How the "whole is now greater than the sum of its parts' ?, could you give me an example?"

All biology is a whole greater than the sum of its parts. A simple test is to ask yourself whether by understanding an atom you understand how the human body functions? The answer is No. So a human is greater than the sum of his/her parts.

The entire concept of emergence is one that I find difficult to come to terms with. Energy is a zero sum reality from what we understand. It cannot be gained it cannot be lost. When we come to the conclusion that some how "the whole is greater than the parts" we have to explain how a system has gained this additional energy.

We hear about emergence alot. In natural systems people use it to describe "collective consciousness". The funny thing is that this term isn't just some far fetched fringe idea. It's used to describe how complexity is achieved from simple starting conditions.

I'll jump to ants again. A single ant is quite simple. By itself it would never accomplish much. A colony of ants however seem to converge together to create a system much more complex than can be described by many ants. This is emergence. The "collective consciousness" of the colony.

It doesn't stop with ants. Any system that appears to show more complexity than it should will quickly have the "emergence" label slapped on it. We hear about it a lot when we discuss consciousness. How in the world can simple neurons create such a complex perception of reality? Instead of trying to come to a better understanding of this process, some are satisfied to just label it as something beyond understanding and move on.

Sounds like mysticism doesn't it? It does to me too. We can look at fractal patterns and see how simple starting conditions applied in many iterations come together to form complex systems without the need to invoke emergence.

Is a combustion engine emergent? If you say no then I'd like to understand why. No single part of the engine is capable by itself of performing the task that the complete engine does. By it's very definition complex systems become more complex the higher up the chain you go. It's not a stretch of the imagination to make the statement that humans are more complex than atoms. It's a given. I don't understand a need to make a connection between that and stating that because we understand atoms, we must be able to understand humans otherwise there is a mystical energy-free force called emergence taking place.

Interaction, not emergence. When we look at individual parts we entirely dismiss the interaction that takes place with other parts. It's this interaction that creates complexity, and will never be seen as we break down the parts. Interaction is a property of a part, just one that isn't seen when you're not considering the group. Because it's a property of the parts then the sum doesn't increase!

^^^
The single most convulted thing I've ever written.

To sum it up. Emergence isn't required to come to terms with complexity. Only the consideration of interaction. Interaction is a property of parts which is only observable when amongst a group. This explains why when we only look at an individual part, we cannot describe or understand the system.

 

[Coldcall]

a4mula,

"The entire concept of emergence is one that I find difficult to come to terms with. Energy is a zero sum reality from what we understand. It cannot be gained it cannot be lost. When we come to the conclusion that some how "the whole is greater than the parts" we have to explain how a system has gained this additional energy."

I'm not sure where you got the idea that an emergent property requires more energy than the sum of its parts. When we say the whole is greater than the sum of its parts we are not talking about energy content. We mean that the whole is now in a completely new configuration, with new abilities and functionality.

"It's a given. I don't understand a need to make a connection between that and stating that because we understand atoms, we must be able to understand humans otherwise there is a mystical energy-free force called emergence taking place."

Who is talking about a mystical energy? There is no need. layers on layers of simplicity create complexity. This is all very natural and no need for mystical stuff.

 

[jnorman]

the purpose of sentient life is to assist in the ultimate goal of the universe - that all things which can possibly occur, do occur.

based on what we currently know of physics, there is no "thing" there - there are point particles (which occupy no space) which are the manifestations of various field, such as electrons and quarks which make up all that we perceive as matter, and there is energy.

also, from quantum theory, we now understand that everything is based around a set of probablilities. the bell curve, as applied to all types of human behavior, is an excellent demonstration of the variation of all possible occurences or states. eg, good and evil - most of us are somewhere around the middle, with increasingly fewer people occupying places under the curve as you reach the ends of pure good (perhaps jesus) or pure evil (hitler?)

the universe is an experiment in possibilities, based on the curves of probablility. sentient life, not content to simply lay on the ground and breath, is encouraged to seek out the entire range of activities and experiences which are available to it, from the most horror-laden to the most sublime. sentient life is an extension of creation by which the universe can observe and experience itself.

ha. :-)

 

[Red Fox]

I have skimmed through the posts in this thread, and to me it seems like half the people are talking about one thing while the rest are talking about something else. First off, saying that sentient life forms are participants in some cosmic game and can choose to influence events one way or another is rather vague, and borders on implying that sentient beings have some fairy tale version of free will (not to mention it assumes that there is such a thing as free will at all). Second, there is no point in hypothesizing a solution to a problem that does not necessarily exist. Purpose is not a prerequisite for existence. Third, as i said in my previous post, purpose is an invented concept that only exists in relation to certain other concepts, situations, etc in our own minds. Lastly, why would only sentient life have a purpose? Why not inanimate objects. If you are going to treat purpose as a property, you have to distinguish what that property applies to and why. Certain properties apply only to certain things, and are meaningless outside of their native context.