Er, right. After some googling, I can see a connection, if not an answer. Apparently, the Library of Babel website, to which you provided a link, is based on a short story of the same name by Jorge Borges about a library containing every possible 410-page text. Wikipedia says:

'There is no reference to monkeys or typewriters in "The Library of Babel", although Borges had mentioned that analogy in "The Total Library": "[A] half-dozen monkeys provided with typewriters would, in a few eternities, produce all the books in the British Museum."'

Wikipedia goes on to say;

'In The Library of Babel, Borges interpolates Italian mathematician Bonaventura Cavalieri's suggestion that any solid body could be conceptualized as the superimposition of an infinite number of planes.

'The concept of the library is also overtly analogous to the view of the universe as a sphere having its center everywhere and its circumference nowhere. The mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal employed this metaphor, and in an earlier essay Borges noted that Pascal's manuscript called the sphere effroyable, or "frightful".

'In any case, a library containing all possible books, arranged at random, might as well be a library containing zero books, as any true information would be buried in, and rendered indistinguishable from, all possible forms of false information; the experience of opening to any page of any of the library's books has been simulated by websites which create screenfuls of random letters.'

Not sure what that means (if anything!) in the context of my OP.

Not sure diagnosis helps (unless you're a parent of a severely autistic child needing serious help). Peace of mind can come from acceptance, I'd say. I've found I can now reach out from my bubble. Have fun!

I give up. Delete me now.

I'm grateful for the four pages of responses, but there's a lot of unimaginative knee-jerk mechanism.

I was hoping someone here would get what I'm saying, kind of agree (or accept it for the sake of argument), and develop it.

Difficulty lies in our ability to understand the processes that actually did happen due to the lack of observational evidence

The difficulty with tbe origin of DNA lies not in the (inevitable!) lack of observation, but in the lack of a plausible theory.

How do you know how probable, or possible, the occurrence of DNA is?

It's high improbability arises from the difficulty of getting from the component chemicals to the highly complex molecule without the benefit of evolution (which is, of course, only possible with DNA).

Thanks. :cool:

Re "meaning" and which academic field it belongs to, I'm suggesting that the improbablity of the occurrence of DNA inplies the possibility of a meaningful universal consciousness - and that that "meaning" is the same quality as that behind the creation of the works of Shakespeare, which makes their reproduction by randomness as improbable as the ocurrence of DNA.

... the empirical facts and our lack of comprehensive understanding of them give us no reason to infer any "supernatural intervention".

I haven't invoked supernatural intervention. (However, as an agnostic, I don't rule it out.)

When I hear critiques of science in regards to origins or ultimate meanings, I often get the impression that those criticizing would somehow like the trustworthiness of science on the side of their preferred poetic 'explanations.'

How true! We pompously say, "science hasn't yet discovered...". Yes, I like to imagine that, say, cosmology or particle physics will (eventually!) confirm my metaphysical speculation.

Design presupposes a designer.

No it doesn't. Evolution is a brilliant design process that requires no designer.

... you're a true believer

No, I'm not - I'm an agnostic. I'm speculating that, given the improbability of the ocurrence of DNA, there may be a design-like process analagous to evolution at work in the universe.

football fan in Leicester

Yes - now we're safe in the Premiership I can go down the road to watch my favourite team, Man U. Not that I ever have :gasp:

... we cannot comprehend it. But we should always try.

Yes, we should - and we are. And we can help each other.

If we assume that life isn't unique to humans, then the probability of it arising isn't infinitesimally small.

If you mean we should assume there's separate DNA life elsewhere in the universe, then yes, the ocurrence of DNA is less improbable. That's kind of circular, though

Was it predictable that a life form would get the ability to use complex language?

Thats just silly. :wink:

Perhaps a design-like process, a super-blind-watchmaker, is at work - and the universe is "evolving" (in inverted commas out of respect for the brilliant and unique selfish gene).

... look to use

What do you mean?

... life itself creates predictability and meaning

Yes - DNA is life, which evolves meaningfully. Was the evolution of humans, able to think about this, predictable?

Any meaning in DNA is there because of what we do with that DNA.

I hope you mean evolution, not genetic modification. Either way, I'm asking about what meaning DNA's improbable ocurrence might have.

Well, you've done better than anyone else - come up with the explanation for the origin of DNA.

Thanks. Love your work!

Feel it!

That's another way of saying "design". Design doesn't need a designer. Look at evolution. It only needs a process. In this hypothesis, one not yet understood.

Meaning, in this context, is that effects are about their causes, and not randomly generated.

Exactly - and my metaphysical question is: if the effect was DNA, and it was not randomly generated, was its cause cosmic meaning?

The thought experiment is: imagine a device producing random characters indefinitely. Probablity maths says it'll reproduce the works of Shakespeare. — Me

Which has nothing to do with how the universe works from existing states to new states — You

It's similar to how you get from primeval soup to DNA. Until the ocurrence of DNA there was no evolution, so how did that amazingly complex molecule come to exist?

Random chemical interactions took place over a very long time (like the imagined random character generator). Some may have resulted in proto-DNA structures, but without evolution (and without the benefit of the thought experiment's infinity), how would the huge number of exact steps needed go arrive at self-replicating life-forms have ocurred?

How do you distinguish a thought experiment from imagination?

The thought experiment is: imagine a device producing random characters indefinitely. Probablity maths says it'll reproduce the works of Shakespeare.

Hi. For some reason I used my real name. Surprisingly, the universe didn't implode. I live in Leicester, a small city in the UK midlands. I’m 71, semi-retired and half-educated (six GCE O levels, left A levels halfway through). I’ve so far lived a somewhat drifting life. I’m enrolled in the University of Life, of course, but keep missing the lectures.

I’ve got a small chip on my shoulder about not getting a (real) university education. In an adjacent parallel universe, I’m a semi-retired academic. In the next one, I’m a successful freelance journalist. In another one, I’m a homeless alcoholic junkie. And so it goes.

Not that I’d want to categorise myself, but (in this universe) I’m a cisgender, heterosexual, neurotypical, ex-omnivore semi-lapsed-vegan organic-buying vegetarian, left-liberal-Green, antireligious agnostic lapsed Christian with pantheistic, panpsychist and antitheistic tendencies.

On an even more personal note – why not? – I’m in respite from depression. Having tried most available treatments, with varying success, I now occasionally self-medicate with cannabis. I’m currently hanging on to my precious marriage. (Counselling has – kind of – helped.)

Actual monkeys and typewriters aren't needed for the thought experiment. Mechanistic probabilitarians are imagining random character generation which can continue indefinitely.

Meaning, in this context, is a metaphysical property. The improbability of DNA ocurring by chance raises the question: does its ocurrence have cosmic meaning?

... then heat death. Next question

What if before heat death (assuming we survive climate crisis) human consciousness meets/attains universal consciousness?

Fair enough. :worry:

Its field is metaphysics.

Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge. Meaning - the meaning of meaning, if you like - isn't confined to that field.

Words can be used to obfuscate. Is my OP unworthy of acknowledgement and response? If so, perhaps it should be deleted.

Clearly my clarity challenges mechanism. Does that disqualify it?

What are you talking about?

Clearly, I'm talking about the idea that the universe is imbued with meaning; that DNA and our goldilocks planet are not the product of chance. This is the forum for metaphysical speculation, isn't it?

Clearly DNA is not impossible?

How do you explain the origin of DNA, then?

My OP suggests that both events, the hypothetical random reproduction of Shakespeare and tbe hypothesised random formation of DNA, are so improbable as to be impossible. I ask if the connection between tbe two scenarios is meaning.