RE: Does it make sense to speak of "Universal Consciousness" or "Univer...
May 26, 2014 at 8:10 pm
(This post was last modified: May 26, 2014 at 8:17 pm by archangle.)
(May 26, 2014 at 3:23 pm)Chas Wrote:(May 26, 2014 at 2:48 pm)archangle Wrote: That's the problem with philosophy
Think of it in context of your belief. That "awareness emerged from complexity". From our vantage point the earth seems to have a limit to its complexity. Compare that to the complexity of the "known" universe . What might emerge from that "universe" set of interactions that we can't "see" yet?
Most of the universe is actually very simple.
Quote:then look at a complexity verses volume situation. The brain vs. the sun for example. Now the universe has a prediction of 14, or so, billion year size, and as of yet, an unknown complexity. hmmm.
The human brain is many, many orders of magnitude more complex than the sun.
Quote:then, along with your line of thought, the notion that the universe is build on a hierarchy of structure. from pure energy to "us". Would it be wild speculation that there is a "next step" in this structure?
Why, yes, that would be wild speculation.
What hierarchy of structure?
Quote:What do you think it means in term of the possibility of the emergence of "a living" universe?
Nothing. There is no evidence for it and no evidence of a possible mechanism.
lmao really? the standard model is "no evidence" WOW.
the fact you don't understand/know the term " hierarchy of structure" means you are not bringing enough to the table. philosophy is cute and all, but in the end its bs. Good for practice in writing and organizing thoughts. If we have any that is. I could writting and spellering help.
Your line of logic has no reason to stop at "us". In fact, the only wild speculation is the geocentric notion that the earth is it and all there is. That nothing will emerge further as we learn more about the universe is silly based on all your posts.
We do know some of the mechanisms of earth. It is not a wild speculation to say it may be a "life form". It is accepted as "possible" You may not agree with it, but it aint "wild speculation". Also, people at MiT are looking at the possibility that we are really a data set within a larger data set. If you don't know this I would suggest you do something other than read philosophy. pick up a good textbook in one of the sciences. Physics is awesome stuff.
I really could care less if the universe is alive or not. But to hold to the notion "Everything we have the universe probably has more of" is far more reasonable, less "wild", than "nothing out there and we are it"
But we have people that think a book is the sole word of god. They are afraid too. The earth is elegant, it is not that simple today. look inside of a cell. "wild speculation" "most of the universe is simple". Considering we know less than 10% of what it is. it is what it is I guess.
