Arlo, selected inserts ... I get your points (I think) > It seems to me that given this, "life" is > something that is able to emerge only under very rare, happenstance > conditions within a very large cosmos.
[IG] agreed, large and long lived - long enough etc ... the point is that with the right starting boundary conditions / phsyical laws .... we should nevertheless expect it to happen if we (and the universe) can wait long enough. But of course time is a psychological dimension - a subjective perspective we are very bad at. > > Second, I think its quite arrogant to assume (anthropic, even :-)) > that should any of the "cosmic variables" have been different, the > cosmos would be entirely devoid of life. [IG] Yes, but anyone serious with that expectation is not using arrogance as their argument - see my other post. people are thinking very very hard to "conceive" of any conceivable thing we might call life existing. > Third, isn't it also arrogant to assume "we" are the final leg in > this chain? Maybe, like the dinosaurs, we exist only so that our > decomposing bodies will one day grant a future species some form of > fuel. We have this illusion of being on a pinnacle because we can > look back but never ahead. [IG] The illusion of being the most advanced life form we know about is just that, (a lack of visionaray conception) but irrelevant here .... we're just talking about "life of any kind" as you made clear yourself. > > I am reminded of Calvin and Hobbes yet again, where Calvin proclaims > himself the "zenith of evolution", saying something like (not exact), > "think about it, hobbes, every event, every decision that has ever > happened has happened to produce 'me', therefore I am what the > universe planned all along!". Really, think about it Ian, if your > great-great-great grandparents had never met, you would never have > been born, but you were born and therefore their meeting had to be > part of a cosmic plan to produce you. That's really what we are > saying, no matter how you dress it up. [IG] That's not what I'm saying - some anthropically-convenient-creationists are maybe. It's not about me, my ancestors or even humans .... that is just "happenstance" .... its about an existing living thing of any kind - that's the spurious side to this anthropic stuff, to focus on us. > > Yes, there is much interesting in the debate, and yes, I do believe > we will one day encounter life "out there". The idea of multiverses > and inter-dimensional realities I find fascinating. Maybe we are > squares unable to comprehend a sphere. [IG] Squares and spheres. That Arlo, is a very wise statement. It really is about what "we" can comprehend, and "we" are just the happenstance consequence of climbing mount improbable. Even what we can "conceive of" is psychologically constrained by the actual evolution that has happened - to us. Blame Plato again in his perfect forms. EvoPsych to the rescue again. Ian > > Arlo > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
