Mota Boy's Thought of the Day
 

Evolution - it's an inherent force in the cosmos. Traditionally, we think of evolution only in terms of Darwinism, survival of the fittest. However, the universe itself is constantly evolving.

And no, I'm not using "evolving" as a synonym for "changing", but on of "growing more complex". Far before living creatures emerged, matter itself evolved. Out of the scores of elements we now know of today, only two were produced during the Big Bang - hydrogen and helium. After the immense explosion that birthed our universe, the early matter slowly began clumping together in what eventually became the first stars. It was in these stars, over time under immense heat, that the early atoms broke down and recombined to form all other elements. So, in essence, the atoms of which we are composed were created in the core of an ancient star. Pretty cool, huh?

The star eventually burnt itself out and vomited its content into the vast regions of space, where they once again recombined and began the cycle anew. Over time, the atoms that were forged in the heart of celestial bodies found ways to combine into molecules - xygen and hydrogen become water, etc. After countless aeons, this increasingly complex matter began to self-replicate, creating life as we know it and vastly accellerating the process of evolution.

After more unfathomable stretches of time in which evolution led to increasingly complex forms of life, humanity has emerged, imagining itself to be the product of evolution rather than a mere stepping stone.

I find it terribly interesting that evolution in all forms has been the natural occurance of the universe. The fascinating, seemingly-random creation of the infinite complexities of the world around us, to say nothing of intelligent life, from two simple atoms allows one to entertain certain ideas about a possible purpose to the universe. However, what interests me most is the realization that life is just the second phase of the evolution of matter. Perhaps there is yet another phase.

Perhaps, as the elements gave rise to life, life in turn just exists to give rise to something vastly more complex than itself. Almost all ancient descriptions of the universe begin with a god. Perhaps instead they should have ended with one.

I don't think so, once we evolved far enough to altar our environment and design tools and such, evolution stopped. Or at least ; it started making us weaker instead of stronger.

Perhaps the universe should end with one of those skinny Grey-type alien looking things.

It's all physics baby.

Maths and phyiscs do not exist without humans, however.

^ If a tree falls in the middle of a forest...

One of the quantum realities is the universe only comes into being by the act of observation. omg.

Also the tree falling thing is true for what I said above. But it was more to do with the things that lots of physics people go round thinking they know everything but can't accept that their subject woudln't exist unless we were here. At least at uni level.

I remember the first class of my first philosophy course (which I half missed, as the rooms were screwed up), our professor made some comment on a Joni Mitchell song including the lyrics "We are stardust, we are golden", I guess in an attempt to be, ahem, philosophical.

Anyway, I guess I have various comments.

To RXP:
First off, no matter what the physicists (or non-physicists pretending to be physicists) say, I don't buy that whole "you need to observe it for it to exist" thing. That doesn't sit right. So just because HUMAN beings aren't sitting there observing something, it doesn't exist? What the fuck? I think that idea comes from a poor interpretation of a way people typically explain some of the probability laws at a quantum level. And then regarding math and physics not existing without humans... I think that's a ridiculous idea as well... clearly the laws of the universe exist regardless of whether humans have figured them out. Before humans evolved, physical laws still manifested themselves. And I suppose mathematics would be a human creation used to interpret various phenomena, but still, one tree added to another tree, still makes two trees, regardless of how humans decided to describe it in language or symbols (1 + 1 = 2).

And regarding Mr. Studly's comment: "I don't think so, once we evolved far enough to altar our environment and design tools and such, evolution stopped. Or at least ; it started making us weaker instead of stronger."

I think that totally missed the point. The point is not that humans may have stopped evolving, or have started evolving in ways that they become weaker (which I don't necessarily agree with), it's that human life as we know it is an incredibly insignificant part of the evolution of the universe. So even if humans do kill themselves off (or get wiped out by some "natural" occurence) in the next hundred or thousand years, evolution will keep right on going.

And last, but not least, regarding Mota's original post...

The first part is very well written, but I have heard most of the spiel before. The last two paragraphs are interesting however. My favourite part, the part that struck a chord, were the last two sentences. To me that is a totally new idea: the universe creating a god, and not a god creating the universe. I love it. I feel like I'm getting to the point in my life (and I'm only 21!) where I rarely hear an idea that is totally new to me, it's often just the same old thing reiterated in slightly different wording. The only thing more I could have hoped for would be to have thought of it myself, before hearing it elsewhere.

As a scientist, I like to base my views on purely scientific discoveries. That tends to really eliminate ideas of "god", "extra terrestrials", "ghosts", "psychic powers", "afterlife", etc, etc. I don't strongly believe in any of these things, but I would like to be totally open to their possibility. The immensity of the universe, both past and present, presents a huge scientific loophole in which these things can be found. Not only in the fact that they could exist in the future, or could exist elsewhere in the universe, but in the fact that humans are so insignificant, though we are intelligent, we may not have evolved enough to understand the complexities that have created these phenomena, and perhaps we never will.

pfff Intelligent Design is the way to go.

You see, the point is that physical laws only exist to the human observation indeed. Without human observation, the same phenomena is reproducing itself, but it's not comprehended as aphysic law without human lenguage and understanding. Our interpretation and description of such phenomena are founded on the same process that implies that something exists or doesn't exist.
Therefore the phenomena reproduces itself but, by it's own nature, it doesn't exist without human observation and comprehension, regardless of how empirical or non-empirical is our view on it.


I agree with this and i think it adds to the point i made above.


And i agree with Mota Boy's thought of the day as much as i enjoyed reading it, especially this part, to the orygin of life:

But the point that pisses me off is the one still without an answer, wich is the orygin of the human conscience.

i've heard theories about how god is the end-result of evolution, creating a being powerful enough to grow imbue the entire system--past, present, future. or something along those lines--you get the idea.

as for if physics exists without intelligent observers... yeah. all that physicists do is create mathematical models to fit natural occurrences. the "mathematical" part is beginning to be relaxed though... i, of course, have to point that out as it's the direction i'm going in. of particular success are cellular automata. another point is how simple our mathematical models for physics come out to be. why is that? it's a damned fine question. in part you can say it's because we developed our system of mathematics based on our observations--thus euclidean geometry and all that derives from that, including whole numbers, rational numbers, etc. gravity falls off with 1/r^2--why? the easy answer is that it radiates outward uniformly, and "outward" would than be a spherical shell which is 4pi*r^2 and some constant amount of energy is allotted over that surface... so E/4pi*r^2. but why? we keep adding layers of abstraction to our math so things stay pretty looking (all the messy math you see in physics is going from one layer of abstraction to another). still doesn't answer any questions.

there are other things to talk about, but i have class.

How can we be an evolutionary stepping stone if we wipe ourselves out?

You mean that as in we kill each others or as in we wipe our ass?

Physics exists without an observer, as Endy has pointed out. I'm fairly certain what RXP is referring to is actually a misconception.

We don't necessarily have to evolve into the future beings. It could be something else that evolves after us.

we'll have the capability to make machines that can improve themselves faster than we'd be able to improve them rather soon... most estimates put it in well under 100 years--usually around 25.

Yes, but that doesn't mean math and physics do not exist. The laws of the universe exist. The mathematical interpretation of these laws are a human method of understanding. Indeed most likely a universal method of understanding. But it still doesn’t' change the fact that maths and physics will not exist without humans. The universe just is, the maths describes the is and quantum theory describes the universe's 'ought'. But the universe just - is. I hope that made sense. It's one of those things that makes sense in my head but I don't; think I describe it to people well. Obviously I have no real understanding of quantum mechanics so the ought thing might be rubbish. But still the universe is. I keep saying is in my head, i'm going insane.

I used this very same argument against the friend who I had this debate with. I said 1+1=2. He said no it doesn’t. I reply but some fool has written a 80 page paper with mathematical proof on why it does. But this doesn't change the fact 1+1=2 only via interpretation. As I said earlier, the universe just is. It's not maths, it just exists. 2 just exists. The 1+2=2 is in the end a semantic rationalisation of an is. Surely?

That is one of the well known quantum realities. I've read 7 in "Quantum Reality" by Herbert and remember the one that had all of physics shaking in its boots was this one. I think that's what the whole cat thing is about actually. But yeah probables come into existence only with observation because by observing we change the quantum level in a tiny way (right?).

That has never sat right with me either, because observeing a star has no bearing on the star. The star might not even exist anymore! But I guess someone could counter that brains theory purports that we're all linked to other brains which interact with our universe so in some semi direct way we do interact with the star despite it being dead (?)

Fuck this thread has reminded me how much I'm into all this shit. I gotta get reading into the elegant universe by Greene.

And yeah Mota's threads are generally good debate sparkers. But the big assumption in the post is there's one universe ;-)

just a restatement of what i believe rxp means by physics not existing without humans (or similar): we've got kepler's laws and shit about orbits--equal areas in eqaul time, eliptical orbits, etc--but the universe doesn't sit there and go "ok... divide by pi and there! this planet curves 2 degrees this way and speeds up by 10 m/s," the math is just a model we fit to data based on logic and a few axioms ("first principles").

how do i create a treat?????

So, in conclusion, no I did not find it made much sense, to tell you the truth.

I do see what you're trying to say with the "is" and whatnot... but I don't agree with that way of looking at it. I think "physics" still exists, though possibly not in the same way that humans interpret it, as I'd imagine different models could exist for the same system. I'm sure you agree, but you call the system "the universe IS" and I call that system "physical laws of the universe". Semantics?

I know exactly what you're talking about. "The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that it is not possible to specify both the position and the momentum of a particle simultaneously with infinite precision." I can deal with that. Then they go on to explain that by observing a particle to measure its position the photon of light interacts with it and changes its momentum. Okay, that is an explanation of how the formula is derived. But to ME, that does not equate to the particle not existing at all if it is not observed, I don't think that's what that explanation is supposed to mean. I could be wrong. I have never had this discussion with an expert on the subject, or even better various experts on the subject to tell me that "yes, that is actually what it means literally" or "no, that's a poor interpretation". Maybe I'm being arrogant by having this opinion. Who am I to argue with Schrodinger? But I think I'm going to stick to that opinion until I can hear a truly convincing explanation.