Is the Universe living?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
Human ability to observe and infer are truly limited.

We have not observed the smallest parts or aspects of the universe, not even with instruments, minds or imagination. The same is accurate for the limits of space.

Is it possible that the Universe is a living being?

I think that this is an accurate statement–our knowledge is absolutely finite, limited, and really small.
 
Most biologists say that something can be categorized as living if it exhibits most (if not all) of the following characteristics:
  • Homeostasis
  • Organization
  • Metabolism
  • Growth
  • Adaptation
  • Response to stimuli
  • Reproduction
Since the universe appears to fail at exhibiting all of these characteristics except growth, I would say “No the universe is not living.”
 
Jim_Baur said:
Human ability to observe and infer are truly limited.

We have not observed the smallest parts or aspects of the universe, not even with instruments, minds or imagination. The same is accurate for the limits of space.

Is it possible that the Universe is a living being?

I think that this is an accurate statement–our knowledge is absolutely finite, limited, and really small.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say that it is a living being in itself but God’s life flows through it, animates it.
 
Alberti_Devoveo said:
Most biologists say that something can be categorized as living if it exhibits most (if not all) of the following characteristics:
  • Homeostasis
  • Organization
  • Metabolism
  • Growth
  • Adaptation
  • Response to stimuli
  • Reproduction
Since the universe appears to fail at exhibiting all of these characteristics except growth, I would say “No the universe is not living.”
Click to expand...
I notice in Genesis God said “Let there be light” on the first day but did not create the sun and stars until the fourth. Perhaps the "light created on the first day was not light as we experience from the sun or stars but the natural order of things such as Organization, Metabolism, Growth, Adaptation, Response to stimuli, reproduction, etc.
 
It’s strange to think of the universe as a “living being” for several reasons:
(i) the universe is the “sum total” of all things and not an individual thing in itself;
(ii) this “sum total” is drastically different (though composed of matter and energy), with sentience and non-sentience;
(iii) the universe came into existence some 15 billion years ago, so if it is a “living thing”, how did it “begin” to live; and
(iv) the universe does not do what all other “living things” do, that is, consume energy of some sort and grow, and while the universe is expanding, this is not equivalent to growth.

Just some thoughts.
 
I’d say no; cubic mileage does not have the propensity of being alive.

Our limitations of observation apply equally to life and nonlife.

ICXC NIKA
 
My question started from the point of view–our math and physical sciences describe the universe.

We truly do not know what runs the universe. I think Galileo held the idea that math ran the universe–almost sounds like math animated the universe. I am not sure if he held that position, but I believe some scientists might have. Accurately and honestly, I could be totally mistaken about scientist believing that math runs the universe. But many have held that logos or reason or logic runs the worlds. Again, I could be mistaken on these points.

To use Kant’s word noumenal is helpful. Whether Kant was correct in all that he speculated, I believe that our limited intellectual abilities are unable to penetrate that which is behind the phenomenon. In that sense, there is a noumenal world behind what the sciences describe.
 
Jim_Baur said:
To use Kant’s word noumenal is helpful. Whether Kant was correct in all that he speculated, I believe that our limited intellectual abilities are unable to penetrate that which is behind the phenomenon. In that sense, there is a noumenal world behind what the sciences describe.
Click to expand...
That’s why I’m a bit wary of Kant because that kind of argument is really a dead-end. Is there anything else? We don’t know, and even if we could know, we couldn’t! I mean, claiming that reality is not as we perceive, understand and intuit it is really problematic because you can never furnish evidence to prove your point since, ipso facto, we cannot perceive, understand and intuit noumena. It’s kind of like the Unconscious: you can basically say anything because nothing can prove or disprove it.
 
Jim_Baur said:
My question started from the point of view–our math and physical sciences describe the universe.

We truly do not know what runs the universe. I think Galileo held the idea that math ran the universe–almost sounds like math animated the universe. I am not sure if he held that position, but I believe some scientists might have. Accurately and honestly, I could be totally mistaken about scientist believing that math runs the universe. But many have held that logos or reason or logic runs the worlds. Again, I could be mistaken on these points.

To use Kant’s word noumenal is helpful. Whether Kant was correct in all that he speculated, I believe that our limited intellectual abilities are unable to penetrate that which is behind the phenomenon. In that sense, there is a noumenal world behind what the sciences describe.
Click to expand...
I would say, God runs the universe, and that God is perfectly consistent in His actions, to such a degree that His ordinary actions can be expressed mathematically. It is part of “Perfect Logic comes from Perfect Love.”
 
Love4all

I agree concerning the physical world.

The spiritual, psychological, and emotional world cannot be address by that which deals with quantity, that is, by math. The spirit is a different aspect, facet, and dimension of His creation.

I believe that the noumenal world is of a different aspect, facet, and dimension.

In my judgment, math and the physical sciences cannot observe our psychic world, nor the essence of gravity and all of the physical laws. I weigh 172 pounds, gray hair, and am almost six feet tall. That tells me nothing of the essence of a human.
 
Jim_Baur said:
Human ability to observe and infer are truly limited.

We have not observed the smallest parts or aspects of the universe, not even with instruments, minds or imagination. The same is accurate for the limits of space.

Is it possible that the Universe is a living being?

I think that this is an accurate statement–our knowledge is absolutely finite, limited, and really small.
Click to expand...
I hinted at this as a possibility on the thread on reincarnation.
have thought about this before, in connection with my own existence. I have always thought that the fact that I exist (I not we, and not life in general. My own life and existence.) is both the most amazing and absurd idea there is. For 15 billion years the universe existed and nothing made any sense. Rocks collided and stars exploded. All of a sudden 31 years ago, I was born, and everything slowly began to make sense. It wasn’t just rocks colliding and stars exploding anymore.
Click to expand...
It also struck me that there are billions of other people in this world who are not me. That is strange that they all exist and have their own experiences, yet none of them are shared. I don’t share their experience and they don’t share mine. They force me to consider my own life in relation to theirs. I am forced to question why or how it is that I exist as opposed to some other possible person. And what is it that distinguishes me from every other person. What is it that makes me me, and makes them them? Why do I know these experiences and not those? Why don’t i experience and know what they feel, and why don’t they know what i experience? All I can say is, “I” exist. That is at once the most personal, rational, and emotional idea.
Click to expand...
There has to be some way to explain on the one hand the fact that I didn’t live and experience life at one time, and in a short period of time, presumably, I won’t live and exist any longer. There is a certain discontinuity that needs explained. On the other hand there is the multiplicity of existences that need explained. There are two possibilities that I see of explaining this. The first one is according to the western religious perspective. There is a God who exists independently of time and space, who created the world and all life. Each person has a soul that is the source of the knowing “I”.
Click to expand...
The other possibility is that consciousness is simply a natural property of the univers and human life is the product of the universe’s yearning toward self consciousness. So I am just an expression of the universe, and it is all my memories and experiences that combine to form my self. It is my brain anatomy and chemistry that distinguishes me from every other person. My anatomy is the source of my experiences and thoughts, so that is the source of me. On the other hand, our sense of self as opposed to others is just an illusion. We are all just expressions of the universe. All my life is just a momentary instance of the universe. So since consciousness is simply a property of the universe, reincarnation is possible, and even likely. We are all just an expression of a property of the universe, so it is possible that sometime after I die, I will live, experience, and know again. But since my anatomy and brain are the source of my memories, I wouldn’t remember this life. It would appear to be completely independent.
Click to expand...
 
Bradski

Thanks!

This is a friendly question.

I have no intentions of arguing or fighting in an senses of the words.

Considering (potentially) unlimited being, for a non-religious, agnostic or atheistic individual, would polytheism be more acceptable than no god?

I am psychologically and intellectually curious. Again, I will not counter or fight. I am really curious.

I believe in One God. BELIEVE!!!

THANKS!!!
 
Jim_Baur said:
Bradski

Considering (potentially) unlimited being, for a non-religious, agnostic or atheistic individual, would polytheism be more acceptable than no god?
Click to expand...
I’m not an atheist because I find that monotheism is unacceptable in some way. It’s simply that I don’t believe in god(s). So the question as to whether multiple gods would be more acceptable doesn’t make sense to me.

However, I could imagine an alien civilisation of some sort, perhaps even conceived as a single entity, that would be so far technologically in advance of us that they/it could be considered god-like.

Which raises an interesting question that perhaps deserves a thread of its own in the philosophy section. Maybe call it ‘The Imposter’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top