Far out cosmology (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, January 29, 2014, 02:43 (3738 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George: I consider myself an agnostic atheist, but my views may not be typical. 
> It seems pretty evident to me that the universe is largely chaotic; 
> you only have to look at photos from the Hubble space telescope to see that. 
> The apparent design seen in plants and animals has been adequately explained 
> by Darwinian evolution and its more recent improvements.-We will have to agree to disagree on that. There are so many scientific objections to Evolution that it is no longer funny. Tautology and speculation to not a scientific theory make. -> 
>George: The hypotheses of dark matter and dark energy are not yet theories on a par with gravity or evolution. They are on the edges of current knowledge. -Interesting choice of words there, considering both gravity and evolution are widely accepted with little in the way of explanatory power and no direct evidence. (As opposed to the other three fundamental forces.)The weak theory of Gravity-> 
> The ideas of the multiversers are even more speculative in my view. Why the physical constants of the universe are what they are is unknown. I take the view that this shows we need a deeper theory than the standard model to account for their values. They are constants, not variables.
> -Agreed, we need a better understanding, not more speculation and science fiction as fact. -> The anthropic principle, that we exist therefore the universe must be favourable for life to evolve is just a tautology. I think the universe is in large measure unsuitable for life. It is only very unusual local conditions that have allowed life to emerge on planet Earth.
> -Agreed, not to mention it required a lot of 'just so' constants in the universe.-> The concept of anything pre-existing the universe, is just absurd. The universe is by definition everything that exists. So nothing can exist outside or before or after it. So the hypothesis of a first cause is also absurd.
> -Then all cosmology is wrong. Something can not come from nothing, and something had to exist for the Big Bang to occur. Even those physicist that wax poetic about something coming from nothing actually use tiny 'somethings' in their equations. -> The further hypothesis of a universe with inherent consciousness down to the level of its atoms or subatomic particles I find equally absurd. Consciousness is known only in higher animals and can be explained as a result of the evolution of complexity of the nervous system.-This is an ongoing matter of debate on here, and really boils down to what we consider consciousness. Further, no evolutionary theory adequately explains consciousness. If it had, much of the debate on this website would never occur. A lot of my objections to modern science do in fact stem from definitions. Scientist can't seem to simply say what they mean. The waffling on definitions to me is a sign of intellectual dishonesty. Are animals conscious, or not? Does consciousness include self-awareness, or is simple awareness enough?-Moreover, why do we defend classifications that are purely human constructs. The 'tree of life' was made up from whole-cloth and does not fit what we know now. So how can we use it to justify our claims in evolution? Which are we closer to, a monkey, a pig, or a starfish? No one knows because the categories are BS.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.