here is no evidence of anything in the world that does NOT behave consistently with physics, so why should we assume otherwise?
I am a metaphysical naturalist because it's clear the natural world exists, and that its behavior is a entirely a consequence of laws of nature (approximated by physics). So I'd be very interested in hearing of something that disconfirms this. — Relativist
What do you mean by "lucky"? The universe is vast (possibly infinite) - if life is possible, then it's a near certainty that it would occur somewhere/somewhen. What does luck have to do with it?What if 10,000 years from now, we've surveyed millions of promising planets, have found no life anywhere else and still have no consensus on how it got started here? Would you just assume we got incredibly lucky somehow? — RogueAI
Personally, I don't have that much faith in our ability to figure things out. We have our limitations. — Relativist
What are "empirical facts"? Empirical evidence is a body of facts (such as observations, measurements...), so "not knowing" empirical facts sounds self-contradictory.Are you all good with the possibility that we cant know some empirical facts? I.e we should 'just give up', philosophically speaking, on answering certain Qs in practical terms? — AmadeusD
(such as observations, measurements... — Relativist
What do you mean by "lucky"? The universe is vast (possibly infinite) - if life is possible, then it's a near certainty that it would occur somewhere/somewhen. What does luck have to do with it?
Regarding your hypothetical, you seem to be suggesting that anything we haven't figured out within the next 10,000 years, should be deemed miraculous. Personally, I don't have that much faith in our ability to figure things out. We have our limitations. — Relativist
Makes no sense. If we measured or observed something, we know what we measured/observed.Do you think there are observations, measurements etc.. That we cannot know? — AmadeusD
If you're refering to cases where there is sufficient empirical evidence to develop theory - then sure, we'll probably develop theory. But our theories will necessarily be limited by what we can test and observe. Suppose there's a multiverse: other universes are causally isolated from us, so we could never verify such theory.One such could be the observation that "Gene X, in concert with B, F and F^4, causes Life to arise out of sufficiently complex biological material". That is a fact which we, theoretically, could know.
I accept our inherent limitations, and the consequences. That doesn't imply we should stop asking questions and investigating.I am asking whether you accept, and are emotionally fine with, accepting that many of these we cannot actually know.
How many galaxies exist within a million light years of earth? Answer: 1. There are 2 trillion galaxies in just the observable universe.OK, assume a million years have gone by and we've surveyed countless worlds and we're the only one with life. And we still have no idea how it happened. How would that change your beliefs? — RogueAI
I accept our inherent limitations, and the consequences. That doesn't imply we should stop asking questions and investigating. — Relativist
What do you mean by "lucky"? The universe is vast (possibly infinite) - if life is possible, then it's a near certainty that it would occur somewhere/somewhen. What does luck have to do with it? — Relativist
I think it's a certainty that life exists elsewhere in the universe, because the universe is so vast. That's very different from the question you asked. We only know life is possible, we don't know how probable it is. You suggested a scenario in which we searched for life for a million years and didn't find it. That would imply life is very rare: perhaps only one instance within a galaxy (it's physically impossible to search beyond our galaxy in a million years). That would still imply 2 trillion instances of life in the visible universe.It wouldn't strike you as odd if it turns out we're the only life in the universe? That wouldn't be an incredibly surprising result? — RogueAI
I think it's a certainty that life exists elsewhere in the universe, because the universe is so vast. — Relativist
With our current technology. I suspect advancements to our technology will allow us to search beyond our galaxy in far less than a million years.it's physically impossible to search beyond our galaxy in a million years — Relativist
Show your reasoning and conclusion.I agree, but after a million/billion/trillion years of searching and no other life and no account of abiogenesis, what do you think the implications for abiogenesis would be? I think they would be profound. — RogueAI
I agree we'll expand what we can see - but there are things we will never see. For example, it's possible there is a multiverse - but because each universe is causally isolated - we'll never have empirical verification. At best, it will be entailed by theory - but theories that can't be empirically verified are less credible. That's a problem with String Theory - it's an elegant theory that explains a lot, but it defies empirical verification.Just suggesting our technology will improve and allow us to see things we can't see now. But there's no way of knowing how much farther it will let us see, or if it will let us see as far as we need to for this line of thinking. — Patterner
I do have a philosophical hypothesis of abiognesis (life from non-life), but it's a complex argument, involving quantum Uncertainty, Information theory, Evolution theory, Cosmology, and Entropy. There's nothing supernatural or miraculous about it, except for the same open-ended implication as Big Bang theory : something from nothing.When I consider abiogenesis as a "natural" explanation of where life comes from, it seems to me that for some combination of particles to be the recipe for the first lifeform would just be a miraculous occurrence, even if and especially if, one excludes a supernatural explanation. Does anyone have perspective of it or an alternative theory? I am open to a "natural" explanation for life's origin, I'm just not sure an account can be given in natural terms without any miraculous occurrences. — NotAristotle
Since Energy per se is aimless causation, if the emergence of life from non-life is a sign of anti-entropy (i.e. progress instead of regress), then some explanation for the mono-directional Arrow of Time*3 is needed, philosophically if not scientifically. — Gnomon
Those two statements seem inconsistent. How could something gradually emerge if there is no passage of time — Relativist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.