Life, The Universe and Everything In It
Isn't this the subject of the deepest and most influential efforts of study? Life, The Universe and Everything In It. It seems to summarize such questions as "Why do we exist?", "What is life?", "What is the Universe?", "Why does the Universe exist?", "Is there a beginning?", "Is there an end?" and more. In the past, we looked to mysticism and superstition in order to answer these questions. The responses we got where of Gods and Heavens and promises of eternal salvation. As we move forward in our own "intellectual evolution" we begin to throw these mystical and superstitious answers to the way-side, and begin looking to science and technology to answer the same questions.
Before I delve any further into a potential answer for the contemporary age, I must beg the question: are we even asking the right things? Why must the Universe be finite? Why must life have meaning? Why must there be a beginning and/or an end? Are we asking the right questions? We are so infatuated with the finite, because let's face it, everything we know has a degree of finity to it, but does correlation imply causation? (For those who've done less philosophical or logical research, it's generally accepted that correlation does NOT imply causation.) Maybe the Universe is infinite? Maybe the Universe is just a container for mass and energy and there is some sort of pattern to the contents, but not to the Universe itself. Let's draw an analogy to a water bottle. Presume that the bottle exists, has always existed and will always exist (infinity). So then it is the water inside that exhibits change. It can be full, empty or somewhere in between, but the bottle itself doesn't change. What if this is like the Universe? There is a real possibility that we're concerning ourselves with questions about the Universe that just aren't applicable.
But, with that potential aside, I will actually attempt to answer the questions we and our forefathers have always wondered. The questions that deal with "Life, The Universe and Everything In It." We are in an age where we no longer care to look towards mysticism and superstition in order to answer these questions, and I feel that is good. I feel that is appropriate. So what is my proposed answer? I contemplate on the potential for a "natural order." And from what we have been able to assess, the Universe started from a seemingly central point in which matter and energy expanded into the void. From there, that matter and energy collected, cooled and congealed into the celestial bodies we call planets, stars and so forth. From there, the matter and energy began to evolve. It turned into the very simplest form of life, all the while, maintain a "natural order" that I am working up to describing a theory for. This is all part of the natural order.
Eventually, that matter and energy evolved further into organisms and eventually further into non-sentient life, such as plants. The next step came semi-sentient life, of all different forms. Mammals, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and so on. Perhaps my order should be prioritized, but I don't think it needs to be. I think it actually serves more of a point for it NOT to be prioritized because there is no rule or drive to prioritize it. This natural order occurs in the fashion of least resistance, a concept we're all too familiar with. Most everything (except perhaps human beings) follow a path of least resistance. Again, correlation does not equal causation, but let's play along for a bit.
So we're at the point of semi-sentient life. The next step comes sentient life. In our specific instance of space and time, that sentient life just so happens to be us, human beings. Did it have to be us? Not at all. It could have been any one of the prime apes, or any other animal on the planet. The only truth that is rational here is that we beat all the other animals on the planet. And for the last 7,000-10,000 years, we've been beating them into submission. There isn't much room on the planet for two animals to take the lead in sentience, it would seem. Not to mention, the process I've been describing doesn't happen over night. Our sentience is traceable back by about 10,000 years or so - before then, we were the near equivalent to the other great apes... able to use tools and such, but that didn't distinguish us at that point in time. 10,000 years in the relativistic sense to everything I just described is essential 1 day in our entire 70-90 year life span. It takes a nearly unfathomable amount of time for these events to occur. The fact that we've reached the level of sentience we possess now in only 10,000 years is probably quite astonishing and appealing to the Universe. Consider it took some 550 million years before animal life even began on Earth.
So now there's us, humans. A relatively more sentient life form. What happens next? Where do we go from here? How does the Universe evolve next? Well, I don't actually know. Everything I stated above, while hypothetical, is based on observation and science. We've researched, studied and created entire disciplines of epistemology on subtopics that help explain everything I mentioned above. But we ultimately don't know what hasn't happened yet.
Allowing our imagination to run while for a moment, and to continue with the train of thought that this is all some grand scheme for the Universe to evolve, what could be next? For sure, it will be some sort of evolution of our kind. That, or some ultimate failure of our kind. If we fail, then the Universe begins again. That's how the natural order works. We know this best hand through natural selection and Darwinian evolution. Simplifying the entire theory, it boils down to random traits that appear in an organism and that organism essentially takes a test run of that trait. If the trait helps that organism in 2 essential tasks (survival and procreation) then that trait remains part of the gene pool. Traits that do nothing have a random survival rate, and traits that hurt the 2 essential tasks of an organism end up being removed from the gene pool. This may very well be the case on a Universal scale. What if the Universe is following a similar construct? What if our form of sentient life is being put to the test? We may very well just be one of many attempts at sentient life that has either failed, or is continueing until it either succeeds or fails. Whichever sentient life ends up succeeded will lead the way into the next step of evolution.
Evolution is largely considered a naturalistic concept, and when I say this naturalistic, I mean the truthful, direct definition of natural, not the abstracted "natural order" mentioned above. But I don't think it's proper judgement to reserve evolution for only the strictly naturalistic perspective. Many other philosophers feel the same way, as is apparent by the development of Social Darwinism, Directed Evolutio and others. Let's focus on Directed Evolution, which stands in contrast to Natural Evolution. Natural Evolution follows the rules of natural selection, survival of the fittest and so forth. Directed Evolution is apparently the next step. Once an organism becomes fully sentient (or sentient to an adequate degree) Directed Evolution steps in. This is the kind of evolution that may or may not be influenced by natural selection or survival of the fittest exactly because of our sentience. We have the ability to thwart natural selection. Some people see this as bad.
Perhaps this is the natural order I've been talking above from the start. We've evolved into this animal that can perform Directed Evolution and perhaps this is the next step in the natural order. The only problem is, will we get past this stage of the natural order? Everything I described above, from the expansion of the Universe, to the formation of life, presented innumerable challenges. Innumerable odds that needed to be overcome. Yet somehow, we've made it this far. It sounds a lot like natural selection! Random mutations (or in the wider sense, random events) that are either favorable for continued existence or not. We're at the point were we are struggling with Directed Evolution. Will we make it past this challenge? Or will it consume us and destroy us leaving the Universe to try again with a different animal or maybe even a different route altogether? Perhaps, if you'll be charitable to my personification of the Universe, it will decide that life was not the correct way to evolve.
Alas, some may see the eternal flaw in not only everything I've laid out above, but the flaw that exists in all explanations for Life, The Universe and Everything In It. That flaw is - it doesn't answer the question of why. It doesn't even answer the question of how this all came to be. So we're back to the notion I mentioned before taking this trip down hypothesis lane - are we even asking the right questions? Are we looking for an answer that actually exists?
That's ultimately what we all strive to find out. For now, at least. Perhaps, if all the hypothesizing above is correct, we'll continue to evolve and we'll make it past our current challenge of the natural order. Perhaps we won't fail the test. And if we continue on to the next stage of evolution, maybe we'll be that much closer to understanding the questions we continue to ask.
42.
Before I delve any further into a potential answer for the contemporary age, I must beg the question: are we even asking the right things? Why must the Universe be finite? Why must life have meaning? Why must there be a beginning and/or an end? Are we asking the right questions? We are so infatuated with the finite, because let's face it, everything we know has a degree of finity to it, but does correlation imply causation? (For those who've done less philosophical or logical research, it's generally accepted that correlation does NOT imply causation.) Maybe the Universe is infinite? Maybe the Universe is just a container for mass and energy and there is some sort of pattern to the contents, but not to the Universe itself. Let's draw an analogy to a water bottle. Presume that the bottle exists, has always existed and will always exist (infinity). So then it is the water inside that exhibits change. It can be full, empty or somewhere in between, but the bottle itself doesn't change. What if this is like the Universe? There is a real possibility that we're concerning ourselves with questions about the Universe that just aren't applicable.
But, with that potential aside, I will actually attempt to answer the questions we and our forefathers have always wondered. The questions that deal with "Life, The Universe and Everything In It." We are in an age where we no longer care to look towards mysticism and superstition in order to answer these questions, and I feel that is good. I feel that is appropriate. So what is my proposed answer? I contemplate on the potential for a "natural order." And from what we have been able to assess, the Universe started from a seemingly central point in which matter and energy expanded into the void. From there, that matter and energy collected, cooled and congealed into the celestial bodies we call planets, stars and so forth. From there, the matter and energy began to evolve. It turned into the very simplest form of life, all the while, maintain a "natural order" that I am working up to describing a theory for. This is all part of the natural order.
Eventually, that matter and energy evolved further into organisms and eventually further into non-sentient life, such as plants. The next step came semi-sentient life, of all different forms. Mammals, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and so on. Perhaps my order should be prioritized, but I don't think it needs to be. I think it actually serves more of a point for it NOT to be prioritized because there is no rule or drive to prioritize it. This natural order occurs in the fashion of least resistance, a concept we're all too familiar with. Most everything (except perhaps human beings) follow a path of least resistance. Again, correlation does not equal causation, but let's play along for a bit.
So we're at the point of semi-sentient life. The next step comes sentient life. In our specific instance of space and time, that sentient life just so happens to be us, human beings. Did it have to be us? Not at all. It could have been any one of the prime apes, or any other animal on the planet. The only truth that is rational here is that we beat all the other animals on the planet. And for the last 7,000-10,000 years, we've been beating them into submission. There isn't much room on the planet for two animals to take the lead in sentience, it would seem. Not to mention, the process I've been describing doesn't happen over night. Our sentience is traceable back by about 10,000 years or so - before then, we were the near equivalent to the other great apes... able to use tools and such, but that didn't distinguish us at that point in time. 10,000 years in the relativistic sense to everything I just described is essential 1 day in our entire 70-90 year life span. It takes a nearly unfathomable amount of time for these events to occur. The fact that we've reached the level of sentience we possess now in only 10,000 years is probably quite astonishing and appealing to the Universe. Consider it took some 550 million years before animal life even began on Earth.
So now there's us, humans. A relatively more sentient life form. What happens next? Where do we go from here? How does the Universe evolve next? Well, I don't actually know. Everything I stated above, while hypothetical, is based on observation and science. We've researched, studied and created entire disciplines of epistemology on subtopics that help explain everything I mentioned above. But we ultimately don't know what hasn't happened yet.
Allowing our imagination to run while for a moment, and to continue with the train of thought that this is all some grand scheme for the Universe to evolve, what could be next? For sure, it will be some sort of evolution of our kind. That, or some ultimate failure of our kind. If we fail, then the Universe begins again. That's how the natural order works. We know this best hand through natural selection and Darwinian evolution. Simplifying the entire theory, it boils down to random traits that appear in an organism and that organism essentially takes a test run of that trait. If the trait helps that organism in 2 essential tasks (survival and procreation) then that trait remains part of the gene pool. Traits that do nothing have a random survival rate, and traits that hurt the 2 essential tasks of an organism end up being removed from the gene pool. This may very well be the case on a Universal scale. What if the Universe is following a similar construct? What if our form of sentient life is being put to the test? We may very well just be one of many attempts at sentient life that has either failed, or is continueing until it either succeeds or fails. Whichever sentient life ends up succeeded will lead the way into the next step of evolution.
Evolution is largely considered a naturalistic concept, and when I say this naturalistic, I mean the truthful, direct definition of natural, not the abstracted "natural order" mentioned above. But I don't think it's proper judgement to reserve evolution for only the strictly naturalistic perspective. Many other philosophers feel the same way, as is apparent by the development of Social Darwinism, Directed Evolutio and others. Let's focus on Directed Evolution, which stands in contrast to Natural Evolution. Natural Evolution follows the rules of natural selection, survival of the fittest and so forth. Directed Evolution is apparently the next step. Once an organism becomes fully sentient (or sentient to an adequate degree) Directed Evolution steps in. This is the kind of evolution that may or may not be influenced by natural selection or survival of the fittest exactly because of our sentience. We have the ability to thwart natural selection. Some people see this as bad.
Perhaps this is the natural order I've been talking above from the start. We've evolved into this animal that can perform Directed Evolution and perhaps this is the next step in the natural order. The only problem is, will we get past this stage of the natural order? Everything I described above, from the expansion of the Universe, to the formation of life, presented innumerable challenges. Innumerable odds that needed to be overcome. Yet somehow, we've made it this far. It sounds a lot like natural selection! Random mutations (or in the wider sense, random events) that are either favorable for continued existence or not. We're at the point were we are struggling with Directed Evolution. Will we make it past this challenge? Or will it consume us and destroy us leaving the Universe to try again with a different animal or maybe even a different route altogether? Perhaps, if you'll be charitable to my personification of the Universe, it will decide that life was not the correct way to evolve.
Alas, some may see the eternal flaw in not only everything I've laid out above, but the flaw that exists in all explanations for Life, The Universe and Everything In It. That flaw is - it doesn't answer the question of why. It doesn't even answer the question of how this all came to be. So we're back to the notion I mentioned before taking this trip down hypothesis lane - are we even asking the right questions? Are we looking for an answer that actually exists?
That's ultimately what we all strive to find out. For now, at least. Perhaps, if all the hypothesizing above is correct, we'll continue to evolve and we'll make it past our current challenge of the natural order. Perhaps we won't fail the test. And if we continue on to the next stage of evolution, maybe we'll be that much closer to understanding the questions we continue to ask.
42.
posted by ARF at 2:13 AM
0 comments
