[Ian] Statistically (it appears) any conceivable universes in which any kind of life or intelligence could emerge appear to need physical constants, laws and boundary conditions very close to those we already observe.
[Arlo] See, that's the problem, Ian. "Any kind of life"? On what are we basing that? On our narrow understanding and view of "life" based on what we have observed? Even our speculations are limited by this. And great square minds try and try and try to hypothesize about the nature of the sphere, but it just can't be done. The only square that was able to see the sphere was one who was forced to confront it because he experienced it. Again, my problem is the language of certainty flowing from two back-to-back hypotheticals. To say, "the cosmos is perfectly balanced to support life" is the sort of arrogant presumption I just can't take. To say (and maybe you are), "we assume that life must be out there, because life is here, and we assume that based on our current understanding of the forms 'life' may take that the cosmos has to be the way it is for this 'life' to exist, then it seems to us based on these assumptions that the cosmos may be perfectly balanced to support life" is something I have absolutely no trouble with. Because if we change the variables and "life as we conceive it" does not exist, I'd put my money on our conceptions being limited rather than the need for the cosmos to be as it is to support any life. So we can do all these theoretical models and speculation about "life" until we are purple, but until we have more actual experience with the "forms life may take" I'm not quite sure what the point of all this is? What's the hoopla here? Is the foundation here some sort of need for "intelligent design"? Are we looking for "God's Hand"? You say this is not about some type of "sentient teleology", but let's take the AP and run with it. Let's say that of all the possible permutations and variances the cosmos could have unfolded, this is the ONLY one, precisely as it is, that can support life-intelligence of any kind. Let's say we know that with the absolute definity of a God's Eye View. What does that mean for you? What do we take from that? Now let's run the other way. Let's say that "life-intelligence" in some form or another that may be beyond our ability to conceive will exist in ANY permutation of the cosmos. Let's say we know this with God's Certainty as well. What would you take from this? Fundamentally, what is the difference here? 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/
