Life doesn't make sense...

Ya I think the tree would make a sound.
This way of thinking that we can figure things out by taking them apart dosnt pan out. We know all of the theories and have observed lots of things, but it seems there is a big piece of the puzzle that has missed us.

But it makes you wonder, if there was no conscious life form that existed to perceive the universe, would it exist? and if it did, what good would it be?

The way I see it, in order for the universe to "exist," there first has to be an "observer" to perceive it's existence, and that would be us.

[edit on 1-2-2007 by thehumbleone]

Very good thread!

One thing the old Greek philosophers and the old Chinese philosophers, the native Americans, Australians and Africans agree upon is that you have to watch nature doing its work to understand.

You all know what nature is, so I won't go into a semantic in-depth-analysis of what nature was, is, will be or was meant to be. When I say nature, think: the Universe. The One, the Everything. The Matrix. God. The Spirit. The Force that flows through all things. The Emanation of the Eagle, if you follow Castaneda. Whatever you like to call it, whatever you believe in.

Just observe.

There are rules. You drop a rock, and you can be sure it's going to hit the floor.

Watch the moon. It wanes and shines again. The seasons come and go. The waves go up and down. Old becomes new. First rule: frequential patterns.

Watch the beasts and trees, watch the water and watch how languages evolve: things are in correlation with each other. You do something here, something happens there. Second rule: sequential consequence.

Watch the stars. Behold them on a clear summer's night, and if you live in a big city, drive out to the countryside where no lights are on and: look up. Third rule: whatever this thing called "life" is, it's huge. Incredibly huge.

Watch yourself. You're not perfect, but you're pretty good at it. Fourth rule: there is no perfection. Not a perfect circle, not a perfect human, not even nature itself is "perfect" by the sense of the word: it is not "done" yet, it is striving.

Watch the dualities of life and death, joy and pain, light and darkness, high and low, Chaos and Cosmos, Yin and Yang, war and peace. Would you understand the concept of "life" if you wouldn't know that "death" happens? You say that's a paradoxon? What about this one: that you know your past, but can't change it; and have no clue about your future, yet hold power over it? What about this one: that you're right in the middle between the infinite vastness of the universe and the tiniest parts that make it up? Fifth rule: contradiction in terms, seemingly.

There are other rules. Now you may ask where these rules come from. Who made them?

I just made them up.

But with these rules: frequential patterns, sequential consequence, hugeness, imperfection, and contradiction; things are bound to happen. One of which is atoms to form molecules, and molecules to interact. One of which is life. One of which is YOUR life. And it makes perfect sense. Go out and seek it.

[edit on 1-2-2007 by Akareyon]

Life does make sense. If it didn't then what the flip duck mothering donkey (ass) are we flip flapping (duck mortal things) doing here? I beg.

Of course life makes sense. I think there for I am. You think, there fore you are.

How do you think we share information?

We are evolved to survive. Above that we are evolved to think how do you think this exchange of information is even possible?

A long time before computers, one bloke studied knots. Looking at them he discovered that simply by observing the knots, by counting the crossovers etc, recording them, he could determine ANY knot - simply by observing it. Yeah, fookin great, absolutely no application to that at all! Until the arrival of computers that is.

Now he’s dead, and after all that his work is now key in isolating chromosomes by computer, although he had no idea of this he died a poor man, 100 years or so before the first computer. RIP – that bloke!

Back to maths, back to your –pointless- question “does life make sense?

Look at ‘stuff’.

Figure out what fractals are, and how a digital image is compressed.

Look at a fern leaf, butterfly wing, your own fingerprint – anything then ask your question. again.

Ask better questions.

THe universe would still be here if there was no observer. Just because there is not a life form to label it dosnt mean that it would not be here.

If the pope goes toilet in the woods - does it make a noise?

Originally posted by Now_Then
Ask better questions.

There is no such thing as a bad question. People are all doing the best they know how.

So I leave you with this: Answer questions better.

AAC

Merry go round post.

If anyone actually knew the answer to this question we wouldn't be here

Agreed, if I knew why I was here I may be dangerous!

It is problematic to know something about a subject, but not to know the rest of it, or even the context. Those who wish to shun science from their speculations should not be using words like 'atom' in the first place. It makes little sense. Greater education and research would cure much of the ignorance, and put one in a better position to openly speculate. Once they know what they are talking about!

Originally posted by TL
How are the balls or strings thinking?

Material things, do not think and never have. The true answer you are searching for has been under your nose for quite some time.

Originally posted by pepsi78
So what keeps us glued together.

Organic matter is mainly glued together with covalent chemical bonds.

And for the record, amoeba are biochemical machines. Their internals are as ordered as clockwork.

Here is another question, does our body produce atoms, or do we asimilate atoms arond us?
Since we grow, I figure they must come from some where.
I found a theory why we stay in one pice at subatomic level, at sub atomic level there are surtain particles that match, if the particles are not of a kind then they do not stick and repeal them selfs, however if they are of the same kind elecromagnetic forces will keep them glued, just like atoms are glued so they dont fall apart, but this happening at a even smaller level, as in subatomic particles, this making posible atoms not only to stay intact but to stay glued to each other as in some sort of gathering of a sort due to other smaller particles holding them by electromagntic force.



[edit on 3-2-2007 by pepsi78]

Pepsi,

I like your take on this. Nobody wants to takle how or why quantum entanglement might affect their own body. How or why do all of our subatomic particles cohere (as a lifeform) from moment to moment, let alone retain consistency for a lifetime? Identity is not just a crisis on the psychological level, it extends even unto the last very iota of being someone might possess. Saying life is mysterious is true, but a cliche. Its not interesting until you try to unravel that mystery. For my 2 cents, I would put a little more stock by Liebnitz rather than Spinoza. Hypothesis: subatomic particles retain uncertainty by the ability to CHOOSE alternate timelines - particle physics as the theory of average choices rather than the theory of natural "law". by which I mean, has anyone considered what is meant by "law" here at all.

Originally posted by R3KR
THe universe would still be here if there was no observer. Just because there is not a life form to label it dosnt mean that it would not be here.

We don't know everything, so I'm asking this question:

What if the universe itself is an observer? What if there are lifeforms so diverse (even if they're under our noses) that we don't even recognize them as such in this day and age? Perhaps in the near or far future, we might be amazed to find out that there are totally different forms of life in existance, not only animal, plant, or fungus.

Originally posted by pepsi78
Here is another question, does our body produce atoms, or do we asimilate atoms arond us?

The best of questions and happily answering. Every atom (or rather molecule/compound) in your body, is billions of years old. The water you drink has been recycling itself for millenia. This puts a whole new perspective on "freshness".

For example, the nitrogen in your amino acids (protein), may have been sourced from the steak you ate, or the side salad plant material. However, the atoms themselves have been in circulation for an extremely long time, and may have made up the substance of hundreds of previous life forms. Just as your body will be assimilated into the nitrogen cycle too eventually, and may even form part of the flesh of another human being in the very distant future.

Strange but true. Assimilation is a perfect word you chose there.

Originally posted by TL
How do atoms, non-living spheres, or strings, tiny pieces of energy..... make a thinking, moving thing? That's like putting trillions of solid wooden balls, and expecting them to start moving to make cells and thinking after awhile. We are just a bunch of strings or solid spheres moving. How is that possible? How are the balls or strings thinking?

I don't have a specific answer for you. Instead, I'll pose another question. How is the universe possible? How did something come from nothing? I've heard all sorts of theories about how it might have happened, but it ultimately fails to explain how there is anything at all. And, no, a matrix, a holographic universe, a dream, or whatever else anyone comes up doesn't work because you still have to explain where those things came from.

Its a good question, "how does something come from nothing?"; and it probably never will be answered; but there is another question that this question implies; which is; "DID something come from nothing?"; because if no one really knows what the origin was, if it really is a compete mystery; it can be legitimately asked; "Was there ever a nothing which this something is supposed to have come from?"; or in other words, "Was there ever really nothing, or was there always something?" At this point it is probably a good idea to ponder the possible limits of rational knowledge.
My point here is; the whole idea of there being an origin point at all can also be questioned legititimately - Ultimately a scientific viewpoint will seek to resolve all questions into something like a 1=1 kind of scenario. Rationality can not do otherwise than try to resolve conflicting data into a universal sameness. Who is to say that nothing does not equal something (or even everything?) at these kinds of ultimate junctures?