Does the cosmos have a reason?

[Cypress]

There are trillions upon trillions of planets in the known universe, and the odds of life existing elsewhere are staggeringly high—99.9999999999% or higher. Given the sheer numbers alone, it’s almost statistically impossible that Earth is the only planet with life,

Once again, I want to remind you that what we started out discussing was technologically advanced intelligent life. Not just any kind of life microbial or primitive life.

Unless someone can show me how life emerges from inert chemicals, I don't have the ability to claim whether life is ubiquitous, or an exceedingly rare fluke.

I am not convinced that UFOs are spaceships piloted by aliens. There are five billion smart phones on the planet, so it's hard to believe the best we can do is few hundred blurry, grainy, or inconclusive photos or videos.

 

[Litmus]

Once again, I want to remind you that what we started out discussing was technologically advanced intelligent life. Not just any kind of life microbial or primitive life.

Unless someone can show me how life emerges from inert chemicals, I don't have the ability to claim whether life is ubiquitous, or an exceedingly rare fluke.

I am not convinced that UFOs are spaceships piloted by aliens. There are five billion smart phones on the planet, so it's hard to believe the best we can do is few hundred blurry, grainy, or inconclusive photos or videos.

there are thousands of them.

debunkers say they're all fake.

 

[Cypress]

there are thousands of them.

debunkers say they're all fake.

the overwhelming majority of photos and video have been convincingly explained by mistaken identity, optical illusion, or forgery. There are only a small minority that are worth further study.

Given that there are five billion smart phones on the planet, a handful of grainy or inconclusive photos hardly constitutes convincing evidence.

At one point, I really wanted to believe in UFOs. But the crop circle fiasco made me realize the lengths people will go to to lie and fake evidence about aliens, just like they did with Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot.

 

[Litmus]

the overwhelming majority of photos and video have been convincingly explained by mistaken identity, optical ......

no they haven't.

that's just your dumbass establishment talking point.

it's just a lie you keep saying.

 

[Cypress]

no they haven't.

that's just your dumbass establishment talking point.

it's just a lie you keep saying.

Let me guess, you were kidnapped by aliens.

 

[Litmus]

Let me guess, you were kidnapped by aliens.

your mom was.

that's why your dick is green.

 

[Publius]

Once again, I want to remind you that what we started out discussing was technologically advanced intelligent life. Not just any kind of life microbial or primitive life.

Unless someone can show me how life emerges from inert chemicals, I don't have the ability to claim whether life is ubiquitous, or an exceedingly rare fluke.

I am not convinced that UFOs are spaceships piloted by aliens. There are five billion smart phones on the planet, so it's hard to believe the best we can do is few hundred blurry, grainy, or inconclusive photos or videos.

I'm no scientist so I will use AI:

Life emerges from inert chemicals through a process known as abiogenesis, which refers to the natural development of life from non-living matter. While the exact mechanism is still not fully understood, the general steps are theorized to include:

1. **Chemical Evolution**: Simple organic molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotides, formed from inorganic compounds, possibly catalyzed by environmental factors such as lightning, volcanic activity, and UV radiation. These molecules may have originated in the Earth's early oceans or arrived from space through meteorites.

2. **Polymerization**: Over time, these small organic molecules began to combine into larger, more complex molecules, such as proteins and nucleic acids (e.g., RNA). This process likely occurred in favorable environments like deep-sea hydrothermal vents, where mineral surfaces could have acted as catalysts for these reactions.

3. **Self-replicating Molecules**: Certain molecules, like RNA, are thought to have the ability to both store genetic information and catalyze chemical reactions. This dual role of RNA may have been crucial in the development of self-replicating systems, marking a key step toward life.

4. **Cell Formation**: Self-replicating molecules likely became encapsulated within lipid membranes, creating protocells. These primitive cells could protect the delicate chemistry inside and maintain a different internal environment, laying the groundwork for more complex life forms.

5. **Natural Selection**: Once simple protocells with self-replicating molecules formed, natural selection would have driven the evolution of more efficient and complex forms of life, eventually leading to the diverse range of organisms we see today.

Fact checking above:

The scientific understanding of how life emerged from inert chemicals (abiogenesis) is still theoretical, but the broad framework outlined is based on well-supported hypotheses. Here’s a fact-check of the key points:

1. **Chemical Evolution**: Evidence supports the idea that simple organic molecules could form from inorganic compounds under the right conditions. The famous Miller-Urey experiment in 1953 demonstrated that amino acids could be synthesized by simulating early Earth conditions. Other studies have shown that nucleotides (RNA/DNA building blocks) could form in similar ways. Meteorites containing organic compounds also support the theory of extraterrestrial contributions.

2. **Polymerization**: Scientists have found that simple organic molecules can polymerize into more complex molecules like proteins and RNA under conditions resembling early Earth environments, such as near hydrothermal vents or on mineral surfaces. However, there is still debate about the exact environment where this occurred.

3. **Self-replicating Molecules**: RNA is considered a likely candidate for the first self-replicating molecule because it can store information and catalyze reactions. This theory is known as the "RNA World" hypothesis, which has experimental support, although it is still a hypothesis. Recent experiments have shown that RNA can catalyze its own replication under specific conditions.

4. **Cell Formation**: The formation of protocells, simple membrane-bound structures, has been observed in laboratory conditions. These structures can spontaneously form from lipids in water, supporting the idea that primitive cells could have naturally formed. However, how these protocells incorporated functional self-replicating molecules remains an active area of research.

5. **Natural Selection**: Once self-replicating systems arose, natural selection could drive the evolution of increasingly complex life forms. This principle is widely accepted in evolutionary biology, though the specific pathways remain speculative.

In summary, while the exact details of abiogenesis are not fully resolved, the theoretical framework is grounded in experimental evidence and widely accepted scientific hypotheses.

 

[Cypress]

I'm no scientist so I will use AI:

Life emerges from inert chemicals through a process known as abiogenesis, which refers to the natural development of life from non-living matter. While the exact mechanism is still not fully understood, the general steps are theorized to include:

1. **Chemical Evolution**: Simple organic molecules, such as amino acids and nucleotides, formed from inorganic compounds, possibly catalyzed by environmental factors such as lightning, volcanic activity, and UV radiation. These molecules may have originated in the Earth's early oceans or arrived from space through meteorites.

2. **Polymerization**: Over time, these small organic molecules began to combine into larger, more complex molecules, such as proteins and nucleic acids (e.g., RNA). This process likely occurred in favorable environments like deep-sea hydrothermal vents, where mineral surfaces could have acted as catalysts for these reactions.

3. **Self-replicating Molecules**: Certain molecules, like RNA, are thought to have the ability to both store genetic information and catalyze chemical reactions. This dual role of RNA may have been crucial in the development of self-replicating systems, marking a key step toward life.

4. **Cell Formation**: Self-replicating molecules likely became encapsulated within lipid membranes, creating protocells. These primitive cells could protect the delicate chemistry inside and maintain a different internal environment, laying the groundwork for more complex life forms.

5. **Natural Selection**: Once simple protocells with self-replicating molecules formed, natural selection would have driven the evolution of more efficient and complex forms of life, eventually leading to the diverse range of organisms we see today.

Fact checking above:

The scientific understanding of how life emerged from inert chemicals (abiogenesis) is still theoretical, but the broad framework outlined is based on well-supported hypotheses. Here’s a fact-check of the key points:

1. **Chemical Evolution**: Evidence supports the idea that simple organic molecules could form from inorganic compounds under the right conditions. The famous Miller-Urey experiment in 1953 demonstrated that amino acids could be synthesized by simulating early Earth conditions. Other studies have shown that nucleotides (RNA/DNA building blocks) could form in similar ways. Meteorites containing organic compounds also support the theory of extraterrestrial contributions.

2. **Polymerization**: Scientists have found that simple organic molecules can polymerize into more complex molecules like proteins and RNA under conditions resembling early Earth environments, such as near hydrothermal vents or on mineral surfaces. However, there is still debate about the exact environment where this occurred.

3. **Self-replicating Molecules**: RNA is considered a likely candidate for the first self-replicating molecule because it can store information and catalyze reactions. This theory is known as the "RNA World" hypothesis, which has experimental support, although it is still a hypothesis. Recent experiments have shown that RNA can catalyze its own replication under specific conditions.

4. **Cell Formation**: The formation of protocells, simple membrane-bound structures, has been observed in laboratory conditions. These structures can spontaneously form from lipids in water, supporting the idea that primitive cells could have naturally formed. However, how these protocells incorporated functional self-replicating molecules remains an active area of research.

5. **Natural Selection**: Once self-replicating systems arose, natural selection could drive the evolution of increasingly complex life forms. This principle is widely accepted in evolutionary biology, though the specific pathways remain speculative.

In summary, while the exact details of abiogenesis are not fully resolved, the theoretical framework is grounded in experimental evidence and widely accepted scientific hypotheses.

Yes, AI is right: abiogensis is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is not a theory, and a hypothesis by definition has not yet been tested and confirmed by experimental science.

What AI should say is the bottom line: after 70 years of research, we still have not made dramatic progress in showing how biology emerges from inert chemicals, although some generalized hypotheses and ideas are bandied about.

We could mix plastic, cobalt, lithium, copper in a box, and come back in a thousand years and they would not have combined themselves into a computer. We need a mechanism and a process to explain abiogenesis.

It's possible life is inevitable in the presence of liquid water. It wouldn't shock me.

It's also possible life was an exceptionally rare fluke on Earth. All life today originated from a common universal ancestor - a single celled prokaryote. So there was one, and only one, origination event on Earth in its 4-billion-year history. That is a little bit odd.

So whether life is ubiquitous, or a rare fluke is still an open question.

 

[Publius]

Yes, AI is right: abiogensis is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is not a theory, and a hypothesis by definition has not yet been tested and confirmed by experimental science.

What AI should say is the bottom line: after 70 years of research, we still have not made dramatic progress in showing how biology emerges from inert chemicals, although some generalized hypotheses and ideas are bandied about.

We could mix plastic, cobalt, lithium, copper in a box, and come back in a thousand years and they would not have combined themselves into a computer. We need a mechanism and a process to explain abiogenesis.

It's possible life is inevitable in the presence of liquid water. It wouldn't shock me.

It's also possible life was an exceptionally rare fluke on Earth. All life today originated from a common universal ancestor - a single celled prokaryote. So there was one, and only one, origination event on Earth in its 4-billion-year history. That is a little bit odd.

So whether life is ubiquitous, or a rare fluke is still an open question.

Given infinity, there are no flukes. Time assures all that is possible will occur, if infinity is the backdrop.

I'm no scientist, so my only approach is philosophical, which is:

Given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable.

Now, we know that life is possible.

At the minimum, infinity exists in the abstract, and the abstract, though not material, does exist functionally.

But, despite the lack of proof for infinity in the material universe, we know that the known universe is at least 13.5 or so billion years, right?

I think they are discovering that the universe is much older than previously calculated, with the aid of the Webb telescope, they are realizing they have to rethink their math.

That's not infinity, but in my view it's enough time to render the odds vastly increased and therefore the equation (it's not science, it's offered as a philosophical axiom) is still valid.

However, infinity does exist in the abstract, and so, even in a finite universe which begins and ends, whose to say there aren't cycles, one ends, another begins until it ends, then another, and another, and that the universe, or collective universes, are, indeed, infinite?

Trillions and trillions of planets increase the odds of life occuring out of the ordered chaos of the universe, at random, if not 100%, say 99.9999999999999999999999999999999%. Maybe?

You could have a bucket of dice, and toss them until they all turn up sixes.

That might seem impossible, but against infinity, even astronomical numbers are infinitesimally small.

If turning up sixes from a bucket of them being tossed, IF it is possible (which it is) it is inevitable against an infinite number of tosses.

Some argue that because of the astronomical number of things that need to be in place, aligned, and present, the odds of life occuring at random are nil.

But, against infinity, even that number is infinitesimally small.

The mind cannot comprehend infinity.

In my view, God is merely the addition of two things:

Infinity.

Possibility.

Add them together, and you get life.

God IS the possibility, and infinity randomity assures it.

I'm a pantheist, and I beleive the material universe is endowed with the force of a collective divinity, but it's not a 'ID' there is no 'designer' nor is it 'intelligent' in the consciousness sense, but a collective force, and that it exists, is why life is possible. It has endowed matter with that possibility, that property which allows life to occur, as long as the right things are aligned and in place for it to happen, and thus we have randominity producing life, so we can have a religiosity and science working together without conflicting each other. "In my opinion", of course.

The pantheist view is more on the zen, etc., buddhist, etc., side of things.

I reach this conclusion because the Christian and/or traditional religious view that the universe was created by an Intelligent All Mighty God/creator, or 'ID -- intelligent designer', to me, is utterly illogical. Not only that, it's a half baked solution to a void in the mind. The mind is uncomfortable with life occuring at random, so, viola, someone, a God, has to be responsible. But, with a God, we wind up back to square one. If we create a god to solve the problem of the universe, why are we satisfied with that, but not dissatisfied with "who created god? and we wind up in a circular impasse, or 'how did God get to be who he is? How did God come about? etc etc etc. We create a God to solve a void in the mind, but we create another problem, 'Wherefore God?" and we don't question it? so that's a conundrum that, in my view, is unacceptable.


I posited this question to AI, and here is it's response:

Could this be a philosophical axiom? Given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable

ChatGPT 4o said:​

Yes, "Given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable" could certainly be seen as a philosophical axiom. It presents a foundational assumption about the nature of possibility and inevitability within the context of infinity. This type of statement is more speculative and conceptual, fitting within philosophical inquiry rather than scientific investigation.​

​

This axiom suggests that in an infinite context—whether that be time, space, or events—anything that can happen will happen. It touches on themes like determinism, probability, and metaphysical speculation about the nature of the universe, making it more philosophical. It aligns with certain interpretations of infinity in cosmology and metaphysics but is not something that could be empirically tested or proven like a scientific axiom.​

​

Philosophically, this axiom could be explored in discussions about eternal recurrence, multiverse theory, or modal realism (the idea that all possible worlds exist). It would also raise questions about free will, causality, and the nature of possibility itself.​

 

[IBDaMann]

Whatever our many flaws are, there is something unique about humans.

... in the same way that all species are unique.

There has never been another species in Earth's 4.5 billion years,

Why do you believe that the earth's age is 4.5 billion years? Could it be 6.2 billion years? Might it only be 898 million years?

Let me guess, you want to point to some person about whom you read on the internet who claims that is the age of the earth, and because this individual believes that, you know that it must be absolute truth, especially since you read it on the internet.

and there might not be another species in the galaxy, that is/or can be guided towards principles of aesthetic beauty, abstract thought, moral transcendence.

You still haven't explained how you know that no other species understand aesthetic beauty, abstract thought or moral transmorgaflorambience. When was the last time you conversed with a valid sampling of every species on earth?

It's possible we are the only species that has ever existed in the galaxy with the consciousness to seek meaning and understanding in both ourselves and in the laws of nature.

So you acknowledge that it is possible that every species has the consciousness to seek meaning and understanding in both themselves and in nature.

 

[IBDaMann]

Yes, AI is right: abiogensis is a hypothesis.

Nope.

That there was no life whatsoever at some point in the past would be an hypothesis.

That there is life today is an observation.

Abiogenesis would be a logical conclusion from the above hypothesis.

A hypothesis is not a theory,

An hypothesis is a derivative of a theory that will hold if the theory is correct.

and a hypothesis by definition has not yet been tested and confirmed by experimental science.

Science experiments never confirm anything. They simply fail to falsify.

What AI should say is the bottom line: after 70 years of research, we still have not made dramatic progress in showing how biology emerges from inert chemicals,

No True Scotsman Fallacy. No progress is required to be dramatic, whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. Organic chemistry provides much information to fuel very plausible speculation as to how abiogenesis can occur, and why it is likely to occur given the conditions on earth and sufficient time.

We could mix plastic, cobalt, lithium, copper in a box, and come back in a thousand years and they would not have combined themselves into a computer.

Correct. You can "drop" a quarter and it won't fly away. Citing examples of things that won't happen in the course of the laws of nature does not support any point.

You should focus on organic chemistry and on how life forms.

We need a mechanism and a process to explain abiogenesis.

There are many. Organic chemistry does not yet include any, but logical speculation still exists.

It's possible life is inevitable in the presence of liquid water. It wouldn't shock me.

Don't focus on water. Focus on high temperatures and pressures, e.g. thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean. Think about how diamonds form, or how hydrocarbons form. Where you have an open thermodynamic environment that allows for usable energy to increase, you have the potential for life.

It's also possible life was an exceptionally rare fluke on Earth.

It looks far more like an inevitability. Given the countless number of solar systems in the countless number of galaxies within the observable universe, the probability is extremely high that many other life forms exist elsewhere.

All life today originated from a common universal ancestor

This is an hypothesis that is unsupported. You would need to explain why anyone should believe this to be the case.

- a single celled prokaryote. So there was one, and only one, origination event on Earth in its 4-billion-year history.

Convince me that there was only one. Explain how you know that there wasn't another one just last week in the Beebe Hydrothermal Vent Field.

 

[Cypress]

Given infinity, there are no flukes. Time assures all that is possible will occur, if infinity is the backdrop.

I'm no scientist, so my only approach is philosophical, which is:

Given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable.

Now, we know that life is possible.

At the minimum, infinity exists in the abstract, and the abstract, though not material, does exist functionally.

But, despite the lack of proof for infinity in the material universe, we know that the known universe is at least 13.5 or so billion years, right?

I think they are discovering that the universe is much older than previously calculated, with the aid of the Webb telescope, they are realizing they have to rethink their math.

That's not infinity, but in my view it's enough time to render the odds vastly increased and therefore the equation (it's not science, it's offered as a philosophical axiom) is still valid.

However, infinity does exist in the abstract, and so, even in a finite universe which begins and ends, whose to say there aren't cycles, one ends, another begins until it ends, then another, and another, and that the universe, or collective universes, are, indeed, infinite?

Trillions and trillions of planets increase the odds of life occuring out of the ordered chaos of the universe, at random, if not 100%, say 99.9999999999999999999999999999999%. Maybe?

You could have a bucket of dice, and toss them until they all turn up sixes.

That might seem impossible, but against infinity, even astronomical numbers are infinitesimally small.

If turning up sixes from a bucket of them being tossed, IF it is possible (which it is) it is inevitable against an infinite number of tosses.

Some argue that because of the astronomical number of things that need to be in place, aligned, and present, the odds of life occuring at random are nil.

But, against infinity, even that number is infinitesimally small.

The mind cannot comprehend infinity.

In my view, God is merely the addition of two things:

Infinity.

Possibility.

Add them together, and you get life.

God IS the possibility, and infinity randomity assures it.

I'm a pantheist, and I beleive the material universe is endowed with the force of a collective divinity, but it's not a 'ID' there is no 'designer' nor is it 'intelligent' in the consciousness sense, but a collective force, and that it exists, is why life is possible. It has endowed matter with that possibility, that property which allows life to occur, as long as the right things are aligned and in place for it to happen, and thus we have randominity producing life, so we can have a religiosity and science working together without conflicting each other. "In my opinion", of course.

The pantheist view is more on the zen, etc., buddhist, etc., side of things.

I reach this conclusion because the Christian and/or traditional religious view that the universe was created by an Intelligent All Mighty God/creator, or 'ID -- intelligent designer', to me, is utterly illogical. Not only that, it's a half baked solution to a void in the mind. The mind is uncomfortable with life occuring at random, so, viola, someone, a God, has to be responsible. But, with a God, we wind up back to square one. If we create a god to solve the problem of the universe, why are we satisfied with that, but not dissatisfied with "who created god? and we wind up in a circular impasse, or 'how did God get to be who he is? How did God come about? etc etc etc. We create a God to solve a void in the mind, but we create another problem, 'Wherefore God?" and we don't question it? so that's a conundrum that, in my view, is unacceptable.


I posited this question to AI, and here is it's response:

Could this be a philosophical axiom? Given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable

ChatGPT 4o said:​

Yes, "Given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable" could certainly be seen as a philosophical axiom. It presents a foundational assumption about the nature of possibility and inevitability within the context of infinity. This type of statement is more speculative and conceptual, fitting within philosophical inquiry rather than scientific investigation.​

​

This axiom suggests that in an infinite context—whether that be time, space, or events—anything that can happen will happen. It touches on themes like determinism, probability, and metaphysical speculation about the nature of the universe, making it more philosophical. It aligns with certain interpretations of infinity in cosmology and metaphysics but is not something that could be empirically tested or proven like a scientific axiom.​

​

Philosophically, this axiom could be explored in discussions about eternal recurrence, multiverse theory, or modal realism (the idea that all possible worlds exist). It would also raise questions about free will, causality, and the nature of possibility itself.​

Yes, I understand you believe in an infinite universe. I am agnostic about that.
Even an infinite universe cannot have any life that we would would recognize if the physical laws and constants are different outside our visible cosmic horizon. So I do not see infinity as being conclusive proof that an infinite variety of alien life exists.

I give you kudos for being honest enough to admit you are using AI and Chatgbt to help compose your posts

 

[Litmus]

Nope.

That there was no life whatsoever at some point in the past would be an hypothesis.

That there is life today is an observation.

Abiogenesis would be a logical conclusion from the above hypothesis.


An hypothesis is a derivative of a theory that will hold if the theory is correct.


Science experiments never confirm anything. They simply fail to falsify.


No True Scotsman Fallacy. No progress is required to be dramatic, whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean. Organic chemistry provides much information to fuel very plausible speculation as to how abiogenesis can occur, and why it is likely to occur given the conditions on earth and sufficient time.


Correct. You can "drop" a quarter and it won't fly away. Citing examples of things that won't happen in the course of the laws of nature does not support any point.

You should focus on organic chemistry and on how life forms.


There are many. Organic chemistry does not yet include any, but logical speculation still exists.


Don't focus on water. Focus on high temperatures and pressures, e.g. thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean. Think about how diamonds form, or how hydrocarbons form. Where you have an open thermodynamic environment that allows for usable energy to increase, you have the potential for life.


It looks far more like an inevitability. Given the countless number of solar systems in the countless number of galaxies within the observable universe, the probability is extremely high that many other life forms exist elsewhere.


This is an hypothesis that is unsupported. You would need to explain why anyone should believe this to be the case.


Convince me that there was only one. Explain how you know that there wasn't another one just last week in the Beebe Hydrothermal Vent Field.

see

enlightened mason is a dark ages idiot.

 

[Litmus]

luckily the important takeaway from religion is not scientific, but moral.

 

[Litmus]

Given infinity, there are no flukes. Time assures all that is possible will occur, if infinity is the backdrop.

I'm no scientist, so my only approach is philosophical, which is:

Given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable.

Now, we know that life is possible.

At the minimum, infinity exists in the abstract, and the abstract, though not material, does exist functionally.

But, despite the lack of proof for infinity in the material universe, we know that the known universe is at least 13.5 or so billion years, right?

I think they are discovering that the universe is much older than previously calculated, with the aid of the Webb telescope, they are realizing they have to rethink their math.

That's not infinity, but in my view it's enough time to render the odds vastly increased and therefore the equation (it's not science, it's offered as a philosophical axiom) is still valid.

However, infinity does exist in the abstract, and so, even in a finite universe which begins and ends, whose to say there aren't cycles, one ends, another begins until it ends, then another, and another, and that the universe, or collective universes, are, indeed, infinite?

Trillions and trillions of planets increase the odds of life occuring out of the ordered chaos of the universe, at random, if not 100%, say 99.9999999999999999999999999999999%. Maybe?

You could have a bucket of dice, and toss them until they all turn up sixes.

That might seem impossible, but against infinity, even astronomical numbers are infinitesimally small.

If turning up sixes from a bucket of them being tossed, IF it is possible (which it is) it is inevitable against an infinite number of tosses.

Some argue that because of the astronomical number of things that need to be in place, aligned, and present, the odds of life occuring at random are nil.

But, against infinity, even that number is infinitesimally small.

The mind cannot comprehend infinity.

In my view, God is merely the addition of two things:

Infinity.

Possibility.

Add them together, and you get life.

God IS the possibility, and infinity randomity assures it.

I'm a pantheist, and I beleive the material universe is endowed with the force of a collective divinity, but it's not a 'ID' there is no 'designer' nor is it 'intelligent' in the consciousness sense, but a collective force, and that it exists, is why life is possible. It has endowed matter with that possibility, that property which allows life to occur, as long as the right things are aligned and in place for it to happen, and thus we have randominity producing life, so we can have a religiosity and science working together without conflicting each other. "In my opinion", of course.

The pantheist view is more on the zen, etc., buddhist, etc., side of things.

I reach this conclusion because the Christian and/or traditional religious view that the universe was created by an Intelligent All Mighty God/creator, or 'ID -- intelligent designer', to me, is utterly illogical. Not only that, it's a half baked solution to a void in the mind. The mind is uncomfortable with life occuring at random, so, viola, someone, a God, has to be responsible. But, with a God, we wind up back to square one. If we create a god to solve the problem of the universe, why are we satisfied with that, but not dissatisfied with "who created god? and we wind up in a circular impasse, or 'how did God get to be who he is? How did God come about? etc etc etc. We create a God to solve a void in the mind, but we create another problem, 'Wherefore God?" and we don't question it? so that's a conundrum that, in my view, is unacceptable.


I posited this question to AI, and here is it's response:

Could this be a philosophical axiom? Given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable

ChatGPT 4o said:​

Yes, "Given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable" could certainly be seen as a philosophical axiom. It presents a foundational assumption about the nature of possibility and inevitability within the context of infinity. This type of statement is more speculative and conceptual, fitting within philosophical inquiry rather than scientific investigation.​

​

This axiom suggests that in an infinite context—whether that be time, space, or events—anything that can happen will happen. It touches on themes like determinism, probability, and metaphysical speculation about the nature of the universe, making it more philosophical. It aligns with certain interpretations of infinity in cosmology and metaphysics but is not something that could be empirically tested or proven like a scientific axiom.​

​

Philosophically, this axiom could be explored in discussions about eternal recurrence, multiverse theory, or modal realism (the idea that all possible worlds exist). It would also raise questions about free will, causality, and the nature of possibility itself.​

i dont think infinite time and space means "everything will happen".

that's kind of retarded.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable.

that still leaves abiogenesis out in the cold.....

 

[IBDaMann]

Even an infinite universe cannot have any life that we would would recognize if the physical laws and constants are different outside our visible cosmic horizon.

This is the most common stupid, rookie assertion made by the logically inept who are desperate to sound important.

So I do not see infinity as being conclusive proof that an infinite variety of alien life exists.

What if someone were to use logic to show that occurrences of life are like prime numbers, i.e. there must be an infinite number of them because the domain cannot be limited to any finite quantity?

 

[IBDaMann]

Given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable.

Your line of thinking is very good. There is one small chink in the armor that needs to be fixed for your reasoning to be valid. Your assertion needs to be "Given infinite time, all that is possible in each location is inevitable."

Life might not be possible in some locations. In fact, the vast majority of the universe is hostile to any sort of life (assuming extrapolation/extension of the observable universe into the unobservable universe).

However, this is where your infinite universe comes into play. An infinite universe creates an infinite number of locations in which life is possible, and thus inevitable. This is a variation on the Infinite Monkey Theorem.

Well done.

 

[Litmus]

This is the most common stupid, rookie assertion made by the logically inept who are desperate to sound important.


What if someone were to use logic to show that occurrences of life are like prime numbers, i.e. there must be an infinite number of them because the domain cannot be limited to any finite quantity?

yeah.

that seems fucking retarded.

 

[Litmus]

Your line of thinking is very good. There is one small chink in the armor that needs to be fixed for your reasoning to be valid. Your assertion needs to be "Given infinite time, all that is possible in each location is inevitable."

Life might not be possible in some locations. In fact, the vast majority of the universe is hostile to any sort of life (assuming extrapolation/extension of the observable universe into the unobservable universe).

However, this is where your infinite universe comes into play. An infinite universe creates an infinite number of locations in which life is possible, and thus inevitable. This is a variation on the Infinite Monkey Theorem.

Well done.

do you also believe that a thousand monkey with typewriters over infinity would eventually right Shakespeare?

this is horse pooey for idiots.