Are human beings just a cosmic accident?

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes

Well sort of for that last one. I’d like to think my purpose in life is to enjoy it.

Yeah, sure, what’s wrong with that?

Yes to all of the above. Except the last one, the purpose of human life is to propagate itself, as every other form of life

Not at all.

Pretty much. But I don’t think that entirely implies purposelessness. wow apparently that’s a word While no one has set a divine purpose for us, and while the biological imperative drives us to reproduce, what we have evolved with our big, fat brains, what really separates us from the animals, is the ability to define our own purpose. So, no purpose to the cosmos, but just because human beings individually and as societies create their own purposes, that does not make those purposes any less valid than one handed down from some divine power.

1. Yes. It’s far easier to come to terms with this fact if we consider that in an effectively open (as opposed to truly open) universe, probability dictates that finite complexity will arise if we consider Boltzmann Brains.

2. Define “helpless” – are you arguing that we are entirely biologically determined? The problem with complexity is that in an unpredictable environment with other complex entities that, from an epistemological perspective, are agentive entities, simple biological determinism is insufficient – it works for bacteria, but the social, linguistic, and cultural environment in which we operate is so complex that agency must be assumed, even if we are physically, biologically and socially determined.

3. Sure… Why not?

4. I think the meaning is for us to (try to) make our own kind of sense of it.

@Jayne – I can live with the notion of a cosmic accident in some abstract way, although I believe the story is a little different. What’s wrong with a cosmic accident? Two questions:

1) How do you deal with the people who are really upset about it?
2) If human beings are really just helpless agents of their genes, it might not really be their fault when they commit murder?

We do not have enough information to determine that at this moment.

However, i would be inclined to lean towards yes.

As for meaning and purpose, this is a totally subjective idea. and even if there is a god who defines all purpose and meaning as some kind of master authority, this meaning is still just that gods subjective opinion. so i would say it is quite impossible for there to be any meaning or purpose other than the one we make our selves.

OK, having read @the100thmonkey‘s answer I modify my own, I agree with him fundamentally on #2.

@mattbrowne I think that people would be less upset about it if they are brought up with the idea from scratch, rather than discovering it later. The upset factor is largely from the cognitive dissonance of having grown up with the concept of divine purpose and being faced with a lack of evidence for such a purpose. Furthermore, is it any less upsetting to go through life believing there is a divine purpose, but not knowing what it is and being unable to feel satisfied with anything one does because it doesn’t feel like their divine purpose?

I don’t really think its all that bad in the belief that your neigbhor just might be the only other great thing in your life. Maybe if alot of people pulled their heads out of the clouds (or where their head is) and started to think that this just might be it, they would stop crapping where they sleep and treating each other with pure love. FOR THE SPECIES! [CHEERS]

@the100thmonkey – Helpless agents of their genes could mean that all behavior is an involuntary act triggered by the neurobiology of our brain (even including gene-environment interaction and conditional gene expressions). Basically it means we could blame the cosmos and its laws for it. Not only humans are an accident, murderers are an unfortunate accident too. I’m just trying to get a philosophical discussion going. Maybe we could leave the concept of a divine power out for the time being.

…...we’re no stinkin’ accident…... it’s the LAW… EVOLUTION

@gussnarp – What about the concept of a non-divine purpose? What about some of the atheists who also feel a bit uneasy about a cosmic accident, even if it sounds very logical?

@mattbrowne Well, to some extent murders are unfortunate accidents, however, the structure and chemistry of our brains gives us consciousness and the ability to make decisions. While those decisions may ultimately be driven by chemicals, the fact that we think about them at all makes us responsible on some level. Ultimately, if we are driven by pure biology, we have the ability to alter that biology. There is pretty strong evidence that people can change, criminals can be reformed, and we can affect the biological structure of our own brains through conscious thought. That means that the responsibility lies partly with the individual, partly with chance and biology, and partly with society.

More like a Cosmic train smash.

I love it when somebody asks what another person thinks is there purpose for living. The answer is typically something so stupid an cleshay like “I believe I am here on this earth to enjoy life.” or that old chestnut “We are here to pass on our genetic material.” That is all I have to say.

@mattbrowne But what would a non-divine purpose be? Some consciousness must exist to create a purpose, that leaves four possibilities:

1. we are the only definers of our own purpose, the larger cosmos has no purpose (what I believe)
2. The cosmos itself has some kind of consciousness which gives it purpose (for all intents and purposes, divine purpose)
3. Straightforward divine purpose.
4. Aliens.

Do you see some other source of purpose?

Yes. A horrible cosmic accident.

I think accident has a negative connotation. Maybe a cosmic fortuitous outcome?

@gussnarp – What about attaining a higher degree of knowledge? And I mean both scientific and non-scientific knowledge. Well, some people claim science is the only source of knowledge.

@jackm – Yes, I prefer a universe bursting with evolutionary possibilities over a universe of pitiless indifference.

@mattbrowne
Unfortunately, I think we have both.

it would seem so, though the amount we actually know about our universe is rather minuet.

@jackm – Is the pitiless indifferent universe a scientific observation or is it a philosophical assessment?

Pretty much.

Surely an accident, but what makes us cosmic? We have inhabited the tiniest part of the cosmos for the most fleeting period of time. We are not even a cosmic sneeze or fart.

No, I do not think (human beings on) earth or any other planet was a cosmic accident OR mistake. The purpose for human beings is something far beyond my comprehension. Far beyond human comprehension. If I’m allowed to let imagination think about it, I think of a lot of different conclusions but they don’t seem significant enough. No matter how creative I get. For all of humankind to have happened for a specific reason, it must be very far past our human intelligence. We cant even stop ourselves from telling “White” lies each day. Never mind trying to think about our purpose without bias.

I don’t see how it matters. We have been given an incredible gift to use as we will. Whether it’s chance or purpose, I don’t think it makes a difference as to the meaning of life. There is no verifiable information about any entity that might have created us. In any case, even if we were started by some intelligence, the way we have turned out is pure chance. I don’t care how omnipotent you think you are (or you think some hypothetical creator is), the laws of chaos make it impossible for that entity to predict what will happen. Thus, it has to be an experiment, and if it’s a true experiment, then there is no particular meaning, just a hypothesis to be supported or disconfirmed.

Meaning is up to the individual. We all make our own meaning, whether or not we claim it comes from outside us. There has been no proof, to my knowledge, that meaning comes from any other place besides our own consciousnesses. However, since we seem to be status-seeking creatures, it makes sense to think that meaning comes from the esteem of others. Or, to some degree, from our own esteem of ourselves, if we really don’t care about others’ opinions.

@daloon So would you say you agree with me then? That we are unable to understand the purpose or lack of, because we are biased by our human intelligence? We are going to try and define GOD in our human understanding of what we think it is. Which wouldn’t make sense for us to attempt because if it is GOD we as humans, wont even be able to start accurately defining him.

@HLRE Well, that’s a bit like saying we can’t understand our own minds.

Of course we can understand our conception of purpose, unless, I suppose, there is much that is hidden within our own consciousness. Understanding of purpose comes from within, whether or not one has found external evidence of purpose.

Given the lack of agreement about what human purpose is, I conclude that while there are common themes, there is unlikely to be any one objective purpose that applies to all humans. In any case, we all have a conception of purpose, or we don’t. Whatever it is, it likely comes from internal processes, because there does not seem to be any verifiable evidence of any external generator of purpose.

Just for example—say you believe human purpose had been defined by God. Your understanding of God’s word comes from within. You have no way of being certain (except hubris) that your understanding actually is anywhere close to what your God wants. Yet you understand completely your notion of human purpose or meaning. If you believe you can not understand purpose, then that is your choice, or your definition of purpose (something that is not understandable).

Surely we are all biased. We all have our own perceptions and our own understanding of life. However we choose to make meaning of life, that’s what the meaning is. If we choose to think that meaning is unknowable, then it’s unknowable. If we choose to think that meaning is about doing for others, then that’s what provides meaning in our lives.

Some people’s meaning making may be more fulfilling than others. Some people may feel clearer about meaning than others. I don’t think that your method of meaning-making really matters, so long as the meaning fulfills you—whether or not you can actually make meaning the way you think you should.

For me, my life will be meaningful if I make some extraordinary contribution to humanity. It is very likely that I will die without having made that meaning. That depresses me, so I try not to think about it any more. It’s just my idea. It doesn’t have to be that way, but I choose to continue to make that the standard for a meaningful life, whether it is dysfunctional or not. It is what it is. I am helpless to change it. All I can do is keep on doing what I’m doing, and either I will make some satisfactory meaning of my life, or I won’t.

Well, maybe I’m lying a bit. That kind of meaning is not my total focus. I also focus on giving to the people in my life as much as I have the energy for, without making myself crazy. I guess I have a personal meaning and a more global meaning. I choose to believe that, in either case, I can never do enough, sad as that makes me.

@mattbrowne
Just a gut feeling i guess.

There have been parts, primarily evolution, that weren’t really accidents, but for the most part, human existence is an accident.

after today’s theories the universe was random generated so this means that our solar system is random and when you choose models random ,a certain model(model which made us)has to repeat at some point.So we aren’t an accident where just random

Hardly. We’re a minuscule accident.

There is a book out there (Forgive me, I can’t remember the title) that theorized that life on earth is the result of a series of lucky coincidences. For example, if we didn’t have the moon to shield Earth from a constant barrage of meteorites, or Jupiter with its huge gravitational field to keep the asteroid belt in place, or if we were any farther or closer to the sun, life on earth would have been extremely unlikely, if not impossible.

Similarly, as with all other species on earth, we are the result of random biological happenings, emphasized by natural selection. One of our ancestors long happened to be born with a slightly larger brain, and that was helpful, so he survived when others didn’t, and so on. Essentially all meaning of a species is to procreate and ensure the survival of the species, and human evolution is the result of that and random lucky mutations.

However, that does not necessarily mean that life has no “meaning.” As others have said, now that we have developed sentience and advanced societies, individuals can choose what sort of life they want to live, and create their own meaning for life. We are no longer “slaves to our genes” as much as other species may be, but we can also not ignore our instincts of our animalistic core.

To me, it doesn’t matter if human beings as a race have some sort of ultimate purpose. It’s up to individuals as well as larger civilizations and governments to decide what their purpose is in the world today.

“Well, that’s a bit like saying we can’t understand our own minds.”

Well…. that is, EXACTLY, what I was saying. Not just a bit. We have two very different perspectives.

I’m sure you have heard of Fermi’s paradox, which states that given the vast size of the Universe, intelligent life should exist elsewhere, so we should have found evidence of it by now. I think Fermi’s paradox discounts the astoundingly low probability of intelligent life evolving in the universe. Thinking about what @ParaParaYukiko said, it seems that intelligent life is highly unlikely, so perhaps it is only because of the vast size of the universe that human beings evolved at all.

Depends. According to my mom, I was a cosmic accident, though my brother was on purpose. @Jayne was totally an accident too, but looks like he’s aware of that

@mattbrowne: Use spell checker—yes we are a comic accident.

@ratboy Aren’t we both? :D Though perhaps we’re coming in a so-sad-it’s-funny sort of way.

Perhaps a “cosmic accident” by design.

@lloydbird : there is no evidence to support the design argument. Furthermore, it is ontologically expensive. Therefore, from an empirical perspective, it ought to be discarded in favour of more elegant and parsimonious hypotheses.

Hate to say Yes since theres so many but YES.

Accidental or not, human life is what you make it.

Enjoy the fact that you are here, right now, debating what boils down to an unanswerable question. You could be busy not existing at all.

Oh really? You know for certain that the universe is meaningless and, in fact, an accident?

What an absolutely pompous and ridiculous statement!

If I honestly believed that human life was a random ‘accident’, I would have no reason for living and would kill myself. The only way to prove that you think life is meaningless is to kill yourself. (I’m obviously not advocating this but I think it’s ridiculously presumptuous to claim you know for sure there is no higher being out there and life and the universe are meaningless accidents).

If someone honestly believed that everything they did carried no weight or meaning and their entire life was meaningless, what is it within them that keeps them from ousting themselves?

Aha!...In my mind (and I’m sure you will all dispute this) the fact that you see a reason to wake up in the morning and not put a bullet in your brain shows that you think there is a reason of some kind a greater purpose or good worth living for. Whether it be love or family or whatever, you must believe there is meaning and there is some reason. however, miniscule, as to why we’re all here.

@Insomnia
What would killing yourself prove? Just because your brain can not handle that the universe was an accident, doesn’t make it less true

In fact, if there was a heaven, I would be more inclined to kill my self just to get there. (This is why religions made suicide such an evil sin) If this life is all we have, why not use it to its fullest?

@jackm Suicide is a sin because it is considered a rejection of all of God’s gifts, therefore it would not get you to Heaven at all.

true every thing is meaningless…not one thing, humans included, has purpose…

but purpose is not the end all goal for cosmic wisdom, meaning is not the final answer to all things…

the fact of the matter is, quite simply is that all IS or IS NOT….your experience of a human life, the earth, the cosmos, is in your awareness…what dose it matter if it means anything

we are slaves to our genes…to procreate and propagate…or perish

a human life is short, and fleeting, a result of billions and billions of years of random chemical reactions and biological mistakes

yet man seems to have a longing to make it all mean something, they want something to tie it all together for them

this developed as an evolutionary mechanism to understand things we could use for survival…due to our minds growing so fast…faster than our true understanding of these things could come…so we developed elaborate fallacies to explain the misunderstood systems of the world around and within us…fictional stories of how it began, how we began, how we got our thirsty minds, the tool we used to over come our fellow beast with wit rather than speed or strength

this is a fantastic random happenstance….life itself such a miraculous accident….yet still nothing but one….

meaning or no…enjoy your human life…each and every moment….for it is easily ended

Namsate’

According to one theory I quite like, humans had to happen. They say evolution is driven by entropy, and nature favours more complex organisms because they aid the progression of entropy. We just happen to be the greatest consumers of energy.

Nothing in science is an accident, it is just of an unknown cause or the result of very low probabilities. There are a few viable theories of abiogenesis out there, and to claim that evolution is accidental is to give up and stop looking for the details of how we evolved.

@ParaParaYukiko – Well, you might be referring to the so-called Rare Earth Hypothesis. There’s a book called “Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe” by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee. I read it a couple of years ago. Highly interesting.

They think simple life is common in the Milky Way, but complex life isn’t. Maybe only 1 out of 10,000 galaxies provide the fortuitous conditions which are required for complex life and maybe only 1 out of 1,000,000 galaxies provide the very fortuitous conditions which are required for intelligent life. Now with more than 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe intelligence might not be a minuscule accident, but I would agree that humanity sometimes seems like a comic accident @ratboy when fighting each other over who cause the accident in the first place.

“So where is everybody?” Fermi asked. “Hello?”

Well, for SETI to receive something we also need fortuitous overlap and this also depends on the question: How long do technological civilizations exist before go extinct? We’re still around but longterm it’s spaceflight or extinction.

@Insomnia: I do certainly contest your assertion – I find it absurd. Your whole argument seems to be:

I believe in a higher power that has a purpose.
My belief must be correct because I think I would kill myself if I believed there was no purpose.
———————
Therefore others who don’t agree with me are living in bad faith and lying to themselves.

Can you see the fallacies?

The burden of proof is on you to make a logical argument from evidence that there is a purpose to the universe – you’re the one making the teleological claim after all.

@Insomnia; that’s ridiculous. If life has no meaning, there is nothing wrong with killing yourself, it’s true. But there’s nothing right with it, either. The thing about meaninglessness, is it’s meaningless, and you don’t have to go trying to prove your devotion to the concept by offing yourself. You can do whatever the heck you want, precisely because it doesn’t matter, and this little collection of atoms they call Jayne doesn’t want to die, it wants to have fun, get laid (eventually), and become an engineer (considerably more likely than getting laid). It’s an incredibly presumptuous projection of your own desire for purpose to say that people who reject purpose must also have no desire to live; there is desire without purpose, and only people who depend upon purpose would have a problem accepting that.

@Insomnia Meaning or no meaning, I wouldn’t kill myself because I like being alive. Your statement assumes that life must be so miserable that unless one is following a higher power or meaning it is not worth living. My life is not miserable, I enjoy it, and I count on the fact that it will only get better (based on the evidence that it always has, except for a brief period known as puberty).

@Insomnia If someone honestly believed that everything they did carried no weight or meaning and their entire life was meaningless, what is it within them that keeps them from ousting themselves?

How about if they dishonestly believe it – is that ok?

Guys, @Insomnia has every right to feel strongly about it. And of course you’re also exercising your free-speech rights. I don’t want to say I hold the same views as our sleepless friend, but I can perfectly understand his feelings. Maybe that’s the whole point of this philosophical discussion. It’s all about wording as @jackm pointed out already. Because of the fortuitous event we should treasure all life, including our own.

@mattbrowne; he has a right to feel strongly, sure, but he did call us pompous, ridiculous hypocrites, which I think invites an equally strong rebuttal, no?

@Jayne
what type of engineering?

@jackm; mechanical, probably. I’m taking general foundational courses now, though, to keep my options open.

@Jayne
im an EE undergrad myself

@Jayne – Yes, of course. But four people firing back without waiting for him to respond to say the first two volleys? I just wanted to point out that it’s important to understand emotions. I’m reading a book right now called “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller. He’s a professor and specialist in evolutionary biology and he wants to find new strategies to deal with creationism. He said before pointing out that evolution is a scientific fact, the scientists should ask themselves why are so many people so emotional about it. What are the deeper reasons? What upsets so many folks so much? The answers are not that simple. And then, how do scientist have to change their communication strategy? Come on, we all can take a few volleys. It’s a debate.

@Insomnia wrote “If I honestly believed that human life was a random ‘accident’, I would have no reason for living and would kill myself. The only way to prove that you think life is meaningless is to kill yourself.”

I have a few questions.

Why does it mean that life is meaningless if it is a random accident?

Why does someone need to kill themselves in order to prove they think life is meaningless?

Why do you think meaninglessness ends up with suicide? What’s the link here that I’m missing?

Meaning is what humans do. They figure out whys and wherefores. How can it matter whether life was designed or was an accident? We still have it? We were still evolved to try to keep it. The people who think meaninglessness ends in suicide have all been bred out of the gene pool. In fact, the people who believe that there is any reason to actually succeed at suicide are on their way out of the gene pool.

I guess you are assuming that it is meaning that gives people the will to live. You may well be right, but that’s a tautological definition. You are simply saying that if you are alive, then you must have found some meaning to life. You may not articulate it as “meaning of life,” but it is there because you aren’t dead yet.

It also seems that you believe that meaning comes from an external consciousness. That seems pretty silly, since how can you know if anything comes from an external consciousness? You are aware of what you are aware of, and that is you. Unless you have multiple personalities, then your awareness is all you. It is impossible for you to incorporate any external entity into your consciousness. Anything that appears to be inside, is you, and all else is not-you. The only people who can believe there is an external consciousness are those who have found a way to split their consciousness into two or more entities.

These people seem to be aware of a kind of duality or maybe a triality. There is me (the consciousnesses whose thoughts I can access) inside my head, everything outside of my head, and this other entity inside my head. It seems ironic, because I don’t see how someone could experience a unity, unless there is only me and not-me. If there’s another entity that is me, and it is this entity that gives me meaning…. ick! Too confusing.

No. I fail to see how meaning can possibly come from outside any individual, unless that individual has more than one personality. I have trouble trusting the word of people who seem to have more than one personality—the ones who claim to get revelations that are actually from the outside, and not just the way internal revelations appear.

Well…..if all universes exist then it just so happens that we find ourselves in one that supports the evolution of life in this form.

Basically the nature of life and sentience gives rise to emergent phenomena that can be very chaotic which increases the probability that a large number of universes similar to ours exist. From this it seems that life is pretty special, sentient life especially since it can create knowledge about the universe itself. Life is a collection of systems that reduce entropy within themselves but makes things more random outside of themselves, which seems pretty interesting in itself.

In a universe similar to ours it is expected that humans will emerge. The nature of the multiverse favors chaotic behavior. Sentient groups offer some of the most chaotic results we know of. Universes with no sentient life are far fewer than ones in which sentient life emerges (due to the chaotic nature of life). So really, it doesn’t appear to be an accident, the multiverse favors sentience. Although the probability that life develops is most likely rather small, the number of universes with sentience diverges quite quickly and overwhelms those simple mechanistic universes without life. You could say it’s an accident, but it’s really just the nature of the multiverse.

The universe doesn’t seem to have a purpose; however, it does seem to have a tendency towards increasing entropy.

No. No religious discussions on Fluther. Take it to youtube where no one reads the comments. And religious people, dont try anything here unless you’ve really though it through. Religion in general just seems to be one major contradiction so really think your argument through before you post.

@daloon If you wanna get real technical, our consciousness doesn’t entirely stop with the individual. There is feedback from our environment and other people who are a part of the system that make up our consciousness. When you think about something you’ve just seen or read, that thing has effected your consciousness. When you are in the company of another person your personality reflects that person’s interactions with you. There are memes that run throughout all of humanity that serve as a sort of meta-consciousness. It alters itself based on external factors just as our brains do, but much slower. Basically it is a network of our making that allows us to communicate but also binds our consciousnesses together. Anyway, technically we cannot see beyond this consciousness but we can identify it because it is external to our brains. We still operate within this network even if we appear to be fully autonomous.

@Shuttle128 – You said, in a universe similar to ours it is expected that humans will emerge? IN general I agree, but I would rephrase it as ‘in a universe similar to ours it is expected that intelligent life will emerge’.

For the most part that is what I meant. However, a universe that is sufficiently similar to ours will develop homo sapiens sapiens. We are a result of a very distinctive set of circumstances. Although these circumstances are rare, they did occur, which means that a large number of universes exist that include humans because we cause so much chaos. Think of the existence of sentient species as a bottleneck. Once through it the number of universes containing them diverge rapidly.

@Shuttle128 – Well, to test this hypothesis, here’s a thought experiment:

Let’s take present day Earth as sufficiently similar to Earth of the recent past. Suppose we recreated the Australopithecus (let’s say Jurassic Park style from recovered DNA), then we remove all humans. Will Earth develop homo sapiens sapiens? I.e. our species will reappear, say 4 million years into the future?

@mattbrowne, @Shuttle128, I think this only works if there are lots of earths. The question is, how many planets virtually identical to the earth are there in the universe? Nobody knows. Now if there were an infinite number of earths, then human beings would evolve on one of them, but if there was only our earth, stripped back to Australopithecus, human beings would be unlikely to evolve.

@mattbrowne When you consider that a multiverse consists of an infinite number of universes containing all possible arrangements of particles (perhaps many times over) which containing within these arrangements all possible moral problems and all possible choices, considered from all possible points of view, how is it meaningful to speak of a cosmic “accident”?

@Zuma : Yes – the multiverse hypothesis entails determinism.

@Zuma – Well, even in just one universe, our universe, I wouldn’t use the words “cosmic accident”. I picture our universe bursting with evolutionary possibilities. In Tegmark’s level 1 multiverse, yes, there would be trillions of Zumas and trillions of mattbrownes and trillions of Fluther websites. Hardly an accident ;-)

@mattbrowne Em, matt, you just used the term “cosmic accident” in your question. What do you mean by “accident”? And just an accident?

@Zuma – I found the term in Kenneth Miller’s book “Finding Darwin’s God”. He compares his philosophical assessment of the development of the universe and evolution of life with Richard Dawkins’s assessment. The notion of an accident relates to events that “normally” do not take place. Like a Mars-size object hitting Earth at just the right angle at the right time producing a moon which led to another accident called abiogenesis. And so forth. Miller talks about the emotional implications of science jargon. His view of the cosmos is that it’s bursting with evolutionary possibilities instead of blind, pitiless indifference. The result is the same. At least in one corner of the universe there are human beings. What does this mean? The topic has to do with progressive spirituality and we can follow up on this later. I was curious what my Fluther friends think about the notion of this to be an accident.

@mattbrowne Hmm. You might enjoy Steuart Kauffman’s “At Home In The Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity.” He applies chaos theory to evolution, brings in the anthropic principle, and discusses a key concept in the new biology called “biological fitness space,” all of which left me with the sense that we truly are connected to and at home in the universe. The universe is anything but blind and pitiless. It is suffused with purpose—namely evolution, which plays out in all of human morality.

This brings to mind another book I bought meaning to read in the same vein, Ian Stwart’s “Life’s Other Secret: The New Mathematics of the Living World.” From what I’ve gleaned from other sources, this mathematics casts a seamless web over all matter, but particularly living matter, which flows and folds in a fractal geometry. Low probability events are part of the same fabric as higher probability events, so that “accidents” don’t really have much significance in the grand scheme of things.

Still, I do get what you mean about the importance of the moon, the tides, and the rotation of the earth being critically important to creating an optimal environment for the evolution of life on earth.

@Zuma – Thanks, I’ll check it out!

The importance of the moon? Well, here’s a reading tip for you: “Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe” by Donald Brownlee and Peter D. Ward.

You’ll see.

The thing about calling things accidents is that the phrase seems to contain the assumption that the event being called an accident had a low prior probability of happening in the first place; however, we can see with hindsight that the event has happened so the probability is 1. There is no tractable way to determine a prior probability for such an event without simply guessing. This is why I think Drake’s equation is a lot of bull (not to mention it only contains some factors pertaining to the things that made life possible on Earth).

@mattbrowne, @gussnarp I think Zuma explained what you guys were having problems with in my explanation. There are an infinite number of universes that are caused by every decision and random quantum state that could exist in each moment. Once a sentient species exists their chaotic nature causes small changes in initial conditions to make very large changes in final outcomes. Thus the number of universes suddenly diverge with the addition of extremely chaotic systems. There will be very similar universes in which small differences in the initial conditions cause very different behavior in yourself or others. There will be an infinite number of universes that contain you exactly as you are now, but with very slight differences in the world around you. This is why I say that there are an infinite number of universes in which homo sapiens sapiens evolve. There are also an infinite number of universes in which homo sapiens sapiens do not evolve. However, since humans have an extremely chaotic impact on the universe the scale of the human containing infinity is larger than the non-human containing infinity.

I hope I did something to help you guys understand this better and not just confuse you more.

@Shuttle128 – Yes, in a multiverse containing all possible universes, humans must exist. I’m having a debate with @Zuma whether this is currently viewed as a hypothesis or a confirmed theory.

This begs the question: Is the multiverse (as described by David Deutsch or Max Tegmark) a meta-cosmic accident?

@mattbrowne: it’s a hypothesis – there’s no experimental evidence that I know of to confirm it. However, it’s a mathematical consequence of certain interpretations of quantum theory.

If I understand correctly, sufficiently advanced quantum computers could answer the question pragmatically rather than experimentally.

@the100thmonkey said it. Although quantum interference is used by Deutsch as evidence of a multiverse. It also falls out of the Bohmian interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Instead of assuming wavefunction collapse, I believe, Bohmian mechanics simply continues to propagate all possibilities through time.

@mattbrowne Does the multiverse existing require justification? If all possibilities exist then there is no question as to why something exists and others do not.

There cannot be accidents if all possible universes exist. They just simply exist.

This isn’t exactly evidence, per se, but allows us to explain the existence of our universe without begging the question.

@the100thmonkey and @Shuttle128 – Einstein once said, problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. This means it’s possible that future physicists come up with a third explanation as our deep understanding improves. Personally I find the many worlds interpretation far more appealing than the Copenhagen interpretation when explaining the double-slit experiment and quantum interference. Same for the power of quantum computers. This does not mean that we have conclusive evidence that Deutsch’s fabric of reality is in fact reality. In every aspect.

It can’t be avoided: scientists need to think of new forms of observation and new forms of experiments to turn the multiverse hypothesis into a multiverse theory.

(@all) Is a Monarch butterfly “just” a one-off, unexplainable, improbable organism, called into being sui generis, out of nothing by a Creator? Or, is it the explicable product of a lawful universal process wherein the whole fabric of life is constantly in flux and constantly differentiating itself into species because natural selection insures that only the forms with the highest probability of survival endure? Evolution, which explains all of life everywhere, is actually the most probable of possible explanations, whereas supernatural Creation, coming as it does, literally out of the blue, would have to be regarded as just an accident.

As for the jury being out on the multiverse, it all depends on whether you believe infinity is really infinite. In our universe there are 10^118 subatomic particles (give or take) in 2^10^118 arrangements. If space is infinite (or very, very large) and uniformly filled with matter (as cosmological observations) seem to indicate, then there are an infinite number of universes containing all possible subparticle arrangements.

The universe appears to be one giant fractal. If you look at a fractal up close, what you see are lines which represent the tipping points of a dynamic process. Everything above a certain parameter value goes on one side of the line, and everything below that value goes on the other side x-many units away. The line itself isn’t a simple straight line, but very, very crooked because of all the nooks and crannies of the self-replicating features of the fractal which, so far as anyone knows, go all the way down to the Planck level.

According to an interesting little book by Martin Rees, humans exist at the exact scale at which the universe is most complex. If we were much smaller, say, on the order of viruses, molecular bonding would limit our complexity; and if we were much larger, say, on the order of hills or mountains, gravity would limit our complexity. But that is only the beginning of it. Our minds contain the complexity of ideas; which, in turn, contain the complexity of the cultural and historical processes that produce these artifacts.

Our minds, then, are part of the fractal structure of the universe, and they are held together, individually and collectively, by what Ian Stewart calls “chaotic equilibrium.” And since a chaotic equilibrium is so delicately balanced, it requires only the slightest perturbation to tip a threshold and send it cascading off on a train of thought. Our ideas are essentially multidimensional constructs which we build up into more complex knowledge structures. And since fractal structures tend to be self-similar, there is sufficient consistency from mind to mind for us to understand one another.

But even this may be an understatement. Our individual minds may be part of a larger fractal structure—a human memeplex. Just as there is a terrestrial genome of which human life is but one tiny part, there may common memenome from which every living thing draws its consciousness. We share certain limbic brain structures with lizards and, to that extent, we share a certain consciousness of the physical and emotional states that those structures produce.

Consciousness, then, may have its own evolutionary trajectory. It seems to have to do with making decisions based on incomplete information. When we have complete information, the correct choice is obvious, almost automatic, and requires little attention. However, the less information we have, the more effort and attention we have to expend to develop decision rules and formal methods of reasoning and information collection. Our cultural store of knowledge helps us “chunk” complex problems so that we can gradually tackle larger and more complex problems.

However, this memeplex is a dynamic system, and any individual contributor can drop an idea into it which will ripple throughout the whole thing and set off a cascade that topples the reining paradigm and reconfigures the whole thing. So, here we are as human beings with our consciousnesses all linked together by a common fractal structure—a kind of asymptote of all the millions upon millions of decisions we make every day.

What if the multiverse is a similar structure? A dynamic system in which consciousness arises at “decision points” where things could go either way, but the thing that kicks it one way or the other comes from the tipping point within its deepest complexity? In choosing to turn left instead of right, we collapse all possible futures on the right and increase the likelihood of the futures on the left. As such, we become feedback loops in the system. Our consciousness spins off further complexity—complexity which ripples out into the cosmos, in chains of cause and effect that go on forever, adding further complexity to somethings and simplicity to others.

Why would we have consciousness at all if our evolution didn’t have something to do with the most innermost workings of the Cosmos? Is Life “just” an accident of the Cosmos, or is it integral to its inner workings and structure? Maybe consciousness and life are the same thing. Maybe life is all about making choices. If so, then the Cosmos is all about morality and responsibility.

@Zuma – Great answer! So can we view the multiverse as a meta-cosmic accident?

@mattbrowne No, an accident implies that there was a time before the multiverse. Time is simply one dimension in the multiverse, like height, depth, and width (and all the curled up fractal dimensions therein). You are also positing a viewpoint outside the multiverse, and there can be no viewpoints outside the multiverse, since there is no “outside” the multiverse from which to view it. “Before,” after,” and “outside” are only meaningful in terms of the aforementioned dimensions.

You could certainly posit a “Creator” existing outside of time and space, but I’m sorry to say, that such an entity would not really “explain” why there is a multiverse as opposed to no multiverse. It simply adds another imponderable that has to be explained to one that really needs no further explanation. Moreover, such an entity would bear little resemblance to any theistic god, much less the Bible’s God of Creation, who scurries about tinkering with “Creation” after the fact, as He hadn’t created it perfect enough in the first place.

Imagine it: God. Creating the multiverse and then crawling inside so he can play favorites with His creatures, changing this little thing in order to provide a miracle in answer to their grasping, self-serving prayers, telling them to go smite their neighbors—or doing their dirty work for them. What absolute arrogance to think that an entity, capable of creating all that is, all that was, and all that ever will be, would stoop to intervening in any of it, much less on behalf of one infinitesimally small group against all others. The very idea insults.

@Zuma GA

@Zuma – Not necessarily. Why is there an eternal multiverse? Gottfried Leibniz asked this very question about existence. Neither you nor @Thammuz nor David Deutsch have a definite answer for it. I don’t have one either, at least not one that could be confirmed or falsified by scientific method. The question really is about whether there’s something beyond nature, beyond the multiverse (if it really exists) or not. Yes, to a naturalist (or materialist) there can be no viewpoints outside the multiverse. I perfectly understand this.

As for the accident part, there are also some interesting questions related to the multiverse. Although humans must exist of course, it might be interesting to speculate whether the majority of universes contains humans (or other intelligent life forms). We could look at the probabilities of quantum mechanics.

I’d like to know where @Zuma‘s evidence is. There are just too many assumptions in his post for me.

@mattbrowne I still don’t see why do you think there HAS to be a reason.

@mattbrowne I’m afraid that Leibniz’s question is not a scientific one, so it can’t be addressed by “the” scientific method (which, by the way, only disconfirms theories and does not “confirm” them).

Moreover, the question is not formulated in such a way that science or any other method could provide a “definite answer.” Asking “why” is essentially asking about purpose, intention or motive in relation to something. Why did the chicken cross the road? Well, it depends not only on the chicken, but on whether you are willing to take the chicken’s word for it (or you trust your own interpretation of the chicken’s motives) and whether you find the answer subjectively satisfying. “Why” is an essay question, so the answer will be qualitative.

Asking why there is existence as opposed to nonexistence (your original question) is especially nonsensical. Ontological questions can not be answered “yes” or “no” or with a probabilistic estimate of leaning one way or the other. Ontological questions can only be answered with respect to a theory of existence.

Actually, as I have written more at length elsewhere, the multiverse is a theory of existence. That is, it specifies the conditions under which anything can exist. For example, in order for something to exist, it must be situated in space and time; it must be part of a dynamic process; and if it is conscious, it must have a point of view.

So, then, why do things exist? Because they conform to the laws of the multiverse. And why does the multiverse exist? Because it is consistent with its own laws. It exists because it is the set of things that exist, and it belongs to its own set.

The only thing “beyond” the multiverse is nonexistence, the set of things that don’t exist because they aren’t situated in space and time, are not dynamic processes (and hence, have collapsed out of existence), and have no consciousness and no point of view.

As for your statement about whether it would be interesting to speculate on whether the “majority of universes contain humans,” if you look at p. 45 of Tegmark’s article, you will see two graphs at the bottom which show that the region of universes capable of sustaining life is considerably less than 1% of all possible universes. But, because there are an infinite number of universes in this region, not only will there be an exact replica of you and me, there will be all possible possible variations on our lives.

@the100thmonkey “I’d like to know where Zuma’s evidence is.”

Try here and here (click on “new biology,” “fractal geometry,” “decision theory,” and “cosmology.”

@Zuma – Of course Leibniz’s question isn’t a scientific one. I never said so. But it’s still a question. An interesting question. And we will never have a definite answer. Labeling the question as nonsensical is a philosophical assessment. You’ve got the right to do that, although to me – sorry to say that – it sounds a bit desperate.

Yes, the multiverse hypothesis can explain some results we observe in our universe. It can also solve some theoretical problems related to time travel into the past. And there are other valuable aspects. Is it the ultimate consistent theory of existence as a whole? We don’t know. The multiverse hypothesis heavily relies on math. Do we know for sure it’s consistent? From what I know, we can’t. We can’t prove the consistency.

Sorry, but your and @Thammuz‘s posts sometimes sound like questioning the multiverse theory of existence is uncalled for. Is there a taboo for questioning it? Was there a taboo when Einstein questioned Newton’s theory of gravitation? I was brought up to believe that questioning scientific theories and hypotheses is one of the most important ways in which science grows. Not all scientists agree with Deutsch and Tegmark. Are they all amateurs? Are they heretics because ‘The Fabric of Reality’ is in fact a holy book? I’m really surprised that you not even once have expressed doubts about what Deutsch or Tegmark have written, especially when it comes to the metaphysical implications. You see, I question Christian faith and the bible all the time. I see my life as a journey and my learning and searching continues. I’m a free-thinking guy. I love to read about new ideas and new concepts. But I don’t take everything at face value what I read. I still appreciate the ideas. Deutsch wrote a fantastic book and I’m really grateful that you suggested it. It was a great reading tip! If he’s right, he’s right. But I’m not fully convinced yet. The theory has to be tested again and again and again. I would hope that the LHC experiments can indirectly shed some light on things. A quantum theory of gravitation might also benefit research about the multiverse.

@mattbrowne I never said i accept the theory of the multiverse. And personally i think that’s really an hypothesis and too anthropocentric to be accurate, also it can’t be verified directly, only via other theories which can lead to it. Besides it doesn’t have any practical use so far so i don’t see why bothering with it.

Also i never called the question nonsensical, i simply said that it’s a leap to act on the assumption that there actually is a purpose. First, one should verify IF there is a purpose, then investigate on what the purpose is.
If there was a purpose there would be tell-tale signs, somewhere somehow. A C subprogram does show the signs of its purpose and if the universe has indeed one then it will show some sort of sign too. When and how will we find those signs? When we cannot know. How will most certainly not be “by assuming there is and calling it a day”.

I’m really curious to find out wether the universe has a purpose or not, but i will not settle for some unsubstantiated unverifiable bullshit answer, that’s all.

@Thammuz – What unsubstantiated unverifiable bullshit answer about the universe’s purpose or the purpose of the life of a human being are you referring to?

@mattbrowne A couple of posts ago you said, “Why is there an eternal multiverse? Gottfried Leibniz asked this very question about existence. Neither you nor @Thammuz nor David Deutsch have a definite answer for it. I don’t have one either, at least not one that could be confirmed or falsified by scientific method.”

In other words, it is clear that you expect there to be a “definite answer” to Leibniz’s question and for it to be “confirmable or falsifiable” by the scientific method, which it could only be if it were a scientific question. So while you claim you “never said so” you did in fact pose Leibniz’s question as if it were a scientific one, even though you now concede that it is not a scientific question, just “an interesting question.”

But, in fact, it is not “just an interesting question” it is the only substantive objection you have cited to accepting the multiverse as a tenet of cosmological theory. You keep saying that you are not convinced, more evidence needs to be collected before you will be convinced, more tests need to be run, etc. But, the only area in which you have articulated Deutsch and Tegmark’s “evidence” seems to be deficient to you is on the matter of Leibniz’s question.

Every now and then you say something, like wondering whether a “majority of universes have humans in them,” which shows the extent to which you fundamentally misunderstand the theory that gives rise to parallel universes. I addressed this particular instance in my last post, but it is as if I hadn’t said anything at all.

I am sorry to say, but your arguments denying the multiverse are beginning to sound more and more like the ones Creationists use in denying the theory of evolution. Let me explain: Not all scientists agree with Tegmark and Deutsch, therefore the theory is controversial and “unproved,” and needs more evidence before it can be accepted.

No. Unanimity and “proof” are not required for acceptance. A theory is an explanatory heuristic, not an article of faith. One of the most popular and prestigious scientific journals in the country came out 6 years ago with an article saying that parallel universes are no longer the stuff of science fiction; they now have the same standing as the “round Earth, invisible electromagnetic fields, time slowdown at high speeds, quantum superpositions, curved space, and black holes.”

My subscription to this theory is not based on dogma but on the fact that it makes eminent sense to me, and the rest of the scientific community apparently agrees. If there were any serious dissent in the scientific community, there would have been a heated debate, an exchange of letters and either a retraction or a new article offering the alternative. There has scarcely been a peep, so let the word go forth to Harvard and MIT, the multiverse is here to stay.

“I was brought up to believe that questioning scientific theories and hypotheses is one of the most important ways in which science grows.”

There is no taboo against questioning the multiverse, but asking “Why, why, why?” is not how science advances. You have to ask scientific questions, and those are not scientific questions. To that end, I agree with you that more experiments into quantum gravity and the like would likely help elaborate and extend the explanatory power of the multiverse, but it is not likely to disconfirm it. The reason I don’t question it is the same reason I don’t question whether I live on a round earth; i.e., because it makes eminent good sense and there is no reason to question it. There are no discrepant facts which make the explanation problematic, and there is certainly no competing explanation worthy of belief.

As a theory of existence, I find the multiverse elegant, parsimonious, self-consistent and convincing, whereas I find the idea of a supernatural Creation superfluous, internally contradictory, inconceivable, and unbelievable.

@Thammuz “I never said i accept the theory of the multiverse. And personally i think that’s really an hypothesis and too anthropocentric to be accurate, also it can’t be verified directly, only via other theories which can lead to it. Besides it doesn’t have any practical use so far so i don’t see why bothering with it.”

This makes me wonder if you have actually read Tegmark’s article . Too anthropocentric to be accurate? Can’t be verified directly? Doesn’t have any practical uses?

The multiverse as a theory of existence holds out the promise of being the linchpin of a Theory of Everything, a milestone in human intellectual achievement comparable to and perhaps even greater than decoding the human genome. It couldn’t be more practical. As for “verification” how does one verify the laws of probability? They are intrinsic to the whole concept of verification; they are axiomatic. Anthropocentric? I don’t think so (but then you could mean something different than I think you mean).

@mattbrowne “The multiverse hypothesis heavily relies on math. Do we know for sure it’s consistent? From what I know, we can’t. We can’t prove the consistency.”

Suppose you have 100 monkeys banging on typewriters. How long will it take them to write the complete works of Shakespeare? Answer: A rather long time. Now suppose you have an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typewriters, how long will it it take? The correct answer is “hardly any time at all.” In fact, not only will they have written the complete works of Shakespeare, they will have written all the books which that have ever been or ever will be written in every language ever conceived.

So then, if you have an extremely large (10^118) assortment of subatomic particles randomly combining into various combinations, how long will it take them to evolve a universe with humans in it? Answer: a rather long time. But if you have an infinite number of such collections, all randomly combining, it doesn’t take very long at all for all possible universes to evolve.

How do we know for sure? Is it “consistent”? Can we prove it? Well, as you point out, the theory is heavily “mathematical,” so you would look to a mathematical-logical proof, not an emprical one. And, yes, in infinity all probabilities are realized. It is axiomatic. You either get it or you don’t.

By the way, thanks for the tip on the Michael Lerner book, The Left Hand of God.

@Zuma: Don’t wonder. I haven’t read it. I’m simply speaking form my limited understanding of it which i know is likely to be wrong. Then again my field isn’t really quantum physics.

As for the anthropocentric bit i was referring to your phrase “and if it is conscious, it must have a point of view.” but then again i probably am completely mistaken, you seem rather knowledgeable about it so you’re probably the right one among us. Anyway i will take a look at the article, since you pointed ou the part abou the theory of everything.

@mattbrowne: any one that doesn’t rely on evidence. See: “All of them, so far”