I have a question: is the universe alive?
On the one hand, we are alive and we are in the universe so in some sense the universe is alive. The bigger question is: does the universe have some sort of overall consciousness? I know, practically impossible to prove scientifically.
My thought is that IF it turns out the universe has some sort consciousness it must be an emergent quality that evolved over time, not some sort of separate founding entity.
Thoughts?
0
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
2 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I think the most logical answer is no. The only 100% trend we can see in the universe is towards MORE entropy. It is basically the gradual decline into disorder. We don't see it in our everyday lives because we try to create order but the trend of the universe is less order, not more. I don't think this would suggest any level of consciousness. It doesn't seem to suggest a creator because you wouldn't create something to break down on purpose. And then it wouldn't suggest what you proposed because a gradual intelligence that evolved over time would presumably show the opposite trend.
Publius1788
Level 2
Apr 27, 2020
0
In a simple answer...no. Based on the definition of life, there are various criteria that must be met for something to be alive. For example, having a metabolism and reproducing are all considered characteristics of living things. On Earth, all living things are made of cells (or are unicellular, as in the case of bacteria), require water as a solvent, perform some kind of gas exchange with the environment, have a genetic code made of DNA, and are composed of carbon-based chemicals.
Now, I realize that it would be incredibly short-sighted to not thing there may be things in the universe that demonstrate SOME of the characteristics of what we know as life here on Earth without necessarily having ALL of those characteristics. However, what would it mean to be alive (using our own definition of it), if something didn't have at least SOME of these characters?
Additionally, as far as we can tell, the consciousness that you speak of has been shown to be a product of our biological brain. We are able to alter thoughts, feelings, and consciousness through both physical (surgery) & chemical (drugs) manipulation of our brain tissue. Considering that "the universe" appears to be mostly empty space, which doesn't even have the matter necessary to compose a brain/neural network, much less the complexity to do so, I would argue that our universe doesn't possess its own consciousness. Likewise, being mostly empty it doesn't possess the characteristics of life.
CoachP32
Level 2
Apr 18, 2020
1
Andi:
Thank you for your kind response.
A lot depends the definitions of life and consciousness. Iām not sure we have definitive widely accepted understanding of either.
Much like the connected biosphere of earth could not the cosmos be connected? We might not be able to relate to the scale and timescales and modalities so for us now this is pure speculation. But it is possible.
As for emptiness, there is a lot of that around. Most of an atom is emptiness yet it does quite a lot. Emptiness might depend on perspective.
This is not a deist argument. This is an argument for an evolved universe, not one created and overseen by some power.
I agree that the definition of life is fundamental to how this question can be answered. Consciousness is not essential for life, as any bacterium or plant can tell you. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the universe is mostly empty space. To our naked eye, it appears empty (massive planets, stars, black holes, and other "heavenly" bodies notwithstanding). However, it is filled with cosmic rays, dark matter, and other elements we cannot see. Moreover, the vastness of the universe precludes us from stating that it doesn't have the matter necessary to compose a brain or neural network. I might agree that human beings may not exist elsewhere in the universe, but conscious life may exist. Your description of life on earth is appropriate, yet there could be life elsewhere that does not rely on water or oxygen. Scientists often look for signs of water to indicate that there might be living (or extinct) organisms in space. But what if life forms thrived on sulfuric acid, methane, or other elements that would is harmful to an Earthling? Even life forms with consciousness need not have an organic brain as we have. There's a lot to unpack with Andi's question!
Andi:
@Spaceman2020 I just found this article yesterday that is right to the point of this. Not sure how dubious or correct the science is tell me what you think.
@Andi I hadn't considered a mathematical approach for determining consciousness, but it's intriguing. Calculating the phi of a neural system may be a quantitative proxy for consciousness, but does that necessarily define consciousness? Does a comatose human being with an otherwise healthy brain still have consciousness? Also, isn't "experience" an attribute that allows an entity to learn based on past successes and failures? For example, could it be said that artificial intelligence "experiences" prior results and thereby learns from them?
Doesn't seem right to me that consciousness is only a dense system of neural connections, however dense or complex they may be. If that were the case, what is the threshold for consciousness, as measured in phi?
I agree that the density of a neural system can be measured some way, but I'm not convinced that it's a measure of consciousness... if only because I can't yet wrap my own brain around its definition.