Sorry Arlo, we really must be talking past each other on this one still ... just a few new points inserted initially ...
Ian On 3/25/08, Arlo Bensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [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? [IG] No Arlo. defintey not observation (cos we haven't observed anything much outside our carbon-biosphere yet) Based on conceiving what life is, might be and how it might arise, for all conceptual angles available - thought experiments with many conjectures / speculations subject to all manner of logical / critical / mathematical analyses. (Basic information / pattern replicators - of all kinds - are often part of the process. Starting with minimal building blocks and minimal presumptions.) > Even our speculations are limited by this. [IG] As I said already, yes speculations, and yes these are limited by our perspective to conceive of anything (I did raise this as a separate subject - the relation between the conceivable and the possible). We're talking conception, not perception. > 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. [IG] No, no, no Arlo. Cart before the horse. Not a presumption. A conclusion based on open-minded analysis of all the "conceivable" possibilities. > > To say (and maybe you are), "we assume that life must be out there, > because life is here, [IG] That is absolutely NOT what I'm saying. > 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/ > 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/
