Who are we, what are we and why are we?

[jakesteele]

Can science explain everything (soon or later)? Can it explain the why and the how of existence? Why are we and how are we, regarding how existence came into being. I’m not talking the Big Bang, because we don’t know the full, exact nature of it because we haven’t gotten to the precise instant, yet. I’m talking about the how and why of the Big Bang. What happened before the BB, if that term even applies? If the multi-verse question ever gets answered, how and why did the MV come about and so on?

Will there always be some questions will, now and always, be beyond the ability for humans to comprehend?

Is it a case of:
All this is, will eventually be known.

or:

Are there stranger things in all of existence than can ever be known?

If we figure out the Theory of Everything, will we be God-like in that we now would have achieved omniscient?

[Third Eye Open]

When I hear questions like this, I like to replace the word 'science' with 'knowledge', because the only relieable way to gain knowledge on anything is through science.

So yes, if anything is going to answer any question, it will be knowledge and the gaining of knowledge.

[Mojo]

Can science explain everything (soon or later)? Can it explain the why and the how of existence?


Perhaps there isn't a "why".

[Starthinker]

Everything about our existance is random chance. There is no why, no destiny, no fate, no master plan, and no reason for anything from the smallest sub atomic particle to the entire universe.

[GrandMasterFox]

Perhaps there isn't a "why".

Yep. Going to have to agree here.

[joobz]

Can science explain everything (soon or later)? Can it explain the why and the how of existence? Why are we and how are we, regarding how existence came into being. I’m not talking the Big Bang, because we don’t know the full, exact nature of it because we haven’t gotten to the precise instant, yet. I’m talking about the how and why of the Big Bang. What happened before the BB, if that term even applies? If the multi-verse question ever gets answered, how and why did the MV come about and so on?

Will there always be some questions will, now and always, be beyond the ability for humans to comprehend?

Is it a case of:
All this is, will eventually be known.

or:

Are there stranger things in all of existence than can ever be known?

If we figure out the Theory of Everything, will we be God-like in that we now would have achieved omniscient?

Chicken salad.

[Hokulele]

If we figure out the Theory of Everything, will we be God-like in that we now would have achieved omniscient?


No, people will still lose their car keys on a regular basis.

[Piscivore]

Can science explain everything (soon or later)?
Unlikely. The limitations of humans utilising science would seem to preclude that. Still, it explains much much more than any other method, which entirely consist of wishful thinking and/or other fallacies.

Can it explain the why and the how of existence? Why are we and how are we, regarding how existence came into being.
As has been said, there may be no "why". Indeed, the knowledge we do have strongly suggests this is the case.

As to "How", that answer is being studied, refined, updated, and investigated as we speak.

Will there always be some questions will, now and always, be beyond the ability for humans to comprehend?
Probably. Does that bother you?

Does it bother you enough that you prefer to pretend to have a full and complete answer instead of accepting the limitations of yourself and your species?

Is it a case of:
All this is, will eventually be known.

or:

Are there stranger things in all of existence than can ever be known?
Maybe. We don't know.

If we figure out the Theory of Everything, will we be God-like in that we now would have achieved omniscient?
Some might think so. It wouldn't make them right- or necessarily wrong.

Why is omnicience a requirement to be "god-like"? Look at all we can do, and compare it to the old stories. Almost all the old "miracles" attributed to gods in the past we take for granted in our daily lives.

[Beerina]

Can science explain everything (soon or later)? Can it explain the why and the how of existence? Why are we and how are we, regarding how existence came into being. I’m not talking the Big Bang, because we don’t know the full, exact nature of it because we haven’t gotten to the precise instant, yet. I’m talking about the how and why of the Big Bang. What happened before the BB, if that term even applies? If the multi-verse question ever gets answered, how and why did the MV come about and so on?

Will there always be some questions will, now and always, be beyond the ability for humans to comprehend?

Is it a case of:
All this is, will eventually be known.

or:

Are there stranger things in all of existence than can ever be known?

If we figure out the Theory of Everything, will we be God-like in that we now would have achieved omniscient?




Computational theory shoots down a lot of the idea that there are things humans can't know in principle. We are, at least, as powerful as a Turing Machine, which, in theory, is the most powerful computational device possible that's still finite in nature. (This speaks to what its even possible to compute, in principle, and doesn't even bother to address mundane things like how long such calculations might take in practice.)

And part of the argument about quantum randomness is that it's not just ignorance on our part, born out of practical, or even theoretical limits to measurements, but rather it's a fundamental feature of reality itself. That particle round about over thataway doesn't actually exist as a measurable particle at a definite location and direction. But note that, whatever does exist, humans (a few bright ones, anyway) have figured out and "characterized" the nature of reality, so far, thus revealing it.


I also note that many religious concepts, like an infinitely powerful god with the ability and desire to hide from us are things that evolved from far more prosaic, limited, and interactive deity-concepts. So even those ideas don't deserve much credence given how they originated.

[Hux]

I wouldn't like to be around in a Universe where there were no more questions. But science will always take us close and open other interesting questions. It will keep on answering the smaller questions until we get the big picture. Its always like that.

[HansMustermann]

Actually, the original Turing machine also has infinite memory.

Second, being Turing-complete doesn't say anything about computing _power_, it only says anything about capabilities. As a trivial example, a Turing machine would still be just as Turing-complete if it did one operation per year, or indeed per millenium. It wouldn't be powerful enough for any actual problem that matters, but it would be a Turing machine or Turing-complete nevertheless.

[Eddie Dane]

I can't speak for others but I'm a hairless ape with pretty big brain and an iPod.

[Southwind17]

If we figure out the Theory of Everything, will we be God-like in that we now would have achieved omniscient?
Omniscience requires a whole lot more than simply figuring out the "Theory of Everything".

Perhaps there isn't a "why".
In the sense of "why did the train crash?" (subtly different from "how did the train crash?") there clearly is a "why" that, hopefully, will one day be fully explained scientifically. In the sense of "is there a profound reason for our being here?" the answer's a resounding "no".

Everything about our existance is random chance.
Rubbish. Random chance might possibly have started the whole process, but thereafter it's a different story. Take evolution, for example. Far from random.

[Bikewer]

Ray Kurzweil talks about the "omega point" at which humans will literally know "everything".

He claims it isn't that far away.....

[Southwind17]

Ray Kurzweil talks about the "omega point" at which humans will literally know "everything".

He claims it isn't that far away.....
No doubt he'll let us all know when we're there, or will he not need to?!

[BNRT]

Would 'knowing everything' include stuff like what Alexander the Great ate three days after his twentieth birthday?

Because such questions might be fundamentally unanswerable.

[HansMustermann]

I was more like hoping for answers to such, I think you'll agree, important questions for humanity as, "what would it be like to have a threesome with Helen Of Troy and Cleopatra?" If you're telling me that science can't give me the answer to that, I'll feel like I've wasted my life with it ;)

[Pure Argent]

Can science explain everything (soon or later)? Can it explain the why and the how of existence?

I doubt that it ever be able to explain everything with 100% certainty. We (probably) can't ever know what's outside the universe, and if there is a why, it would (probably) be outside. But, short of finding some fundamental way to be total jerks to physics, finding out the why would be like opening a locked box with the key that's inside. But there really isn't a reason to assume that there needs to be a why. As for the how, well, that's really just re-asking why. Once we know why it started, physics takes over.

Why are we and how are we, regarding how existence came into being.

Physics + chemistry = universe.

I’m not talking the Big Bang, because we don’t know the full, exact nature of it because we haven’t gotten to the precise instant, yet. I’m talking about the how and why of the Big Bang. What happened before the BB, if that term even applies? If the multi-verse question ever gets answered, how and why did the MV come about and so on?

See first response.

Will there always be some questions will, now and always, be beyond the ability for humans to comprehend?

Is it a case of:
All this is, will eventually be known.

or:

Are there stranger things in all of existence than can ever be known?

In the universe? Doubtful. Outside? DefinitelyProbably.

If we figure out the Theory of Everything, will we be God-like in that we now would have achieved omniscient?

Read (http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html).

[Starthinker]

Omniscience requires a whole lot more than simply figuring out the "Theory of Everything".


In the sense of "why did the train crash?" (subtly different from "how did the train crash?") there clearly is a "why" that, hopefully, will one day be fully explained scientifically. In the sense of "is there a profound reason for our being here?" the answer's a resounding "no".


Rubbish. Random chance might possibly have started the whole process, but thereafter it's a different story. Take evolution, for example. Far from random.

Nope. Even evolution is random.

[Last of the Fraggles]

I would think that provided we last long enough eventually we will explain everything that is explainable.

That doesn't necessarily mean we will have answers to all the questions that people ask as some of the questions, like why are we here, might simply have no answer - as others have pointed out, there might not be a why.

Of course, at some point the human race will likely die out so maybe we won't have explained everything by then, but by then it will largely be irrelevant anyway.

[Southwind17]

I was more like hoping for answers to such, I think you'll agree, important questions for humanity as, "what would it be like to have a threesome with Helen Of Troy and Cleopatra?" If you're telling me that science can't give me the answer to that, I'll feel like I've wasted my life with it ;)
What makes you think science should answer that question for you? I suggest your best bet is to frequent some fancy dress parties, turn on your charm and find out for yourself. Oh, just make sure Theseus and Julius are chewing much fat on the balcony whilst you're at it!

Nope. Even evolution is random.
Mutation might well be, but evolution per se most certainly is not.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Can science explain everything (soon or later)? Can it explain the why and the how of existence? Why are we and how are we, regarding how existence came into being. I’m not talking the Big Bang, because we don’t know the full, exact nature of it because we haven’t gotten to the precise instant, yet. I’m talking about the how and why of the Big Bang. What happened before the BB, if that term even applies? If the multi-verse question ever gets answered, how and why did the MV come about and so on?

Will there always be some questions will, now and always, be beyond the ability for humans to comprehend?

Is it a case of:
All this is, will eventually be known.

or:

Are there stranger things in all of existence than can ever be known?

If we figure out the Theory of Everything, will we be God-like in that we now would have achieved omniscient?Science has taken us pretty far. We have evolution and the big bang. That pretty much covers what we “need” to know. When people start asking about “How, When, Why” they are usually actually looking for the answer to “What” should I do. Religions and stories provide answers to “How, When, Why” that also provide answers to “What should I do”. But religions and stories are not acurate on their ansers to “How, When, Why”. The scientific method provides acurate answers to “How, When, Why”, but the answers don’t answer “What should I do”.

As far as pre-big bang and other unanswered questions, I think there will always be unanswered questions. Much of the universe is beyond the capibillty of light ever reaching us.

I don’t think the answer to the question “What caused there to be something before there was nothing” will every be answered, or more likely, there is no answer to such a question.

[Southwind17]

I don’t think the answer to the question “What caused there to be something before there was nothing” will every be answered, or more likely, there is no answer to such a question.
I think the first option is much more likely (assuming there was once a "nothing"!). I'm sure there's an answer.

[aviolet4u]

Some spiritualists believe there was a "source" and it wanted to explore itself- so it created the universe and its still creating nonstop. So practically we are living its dream and will keep participating in it being the eternal souls that we are since the beginning of time. Doesn't that sound beautiful? :p

Now let me put this pipe down for a sec. :o

[Southwind17]

Some spiritualists believe there was a "source" and it wanted to explore itself- so it created the universe and its still creating nonstop. So practically we are living its dream and will keep participating in it being the eternal souls that we are since the beginning of time. Doesn't that sound beautiful? :p
Sure does, if you're prepared to ignore that we've only been around for 4 million years or so!

[UnrepentantSinner]

Nope. Even evolution is random.

Mutation might well be, but evolution per se most certainly is not.

Yeah. Mutations are random. The selection process, especially the environment is not.

[Dancing David]

Can science explain everything (soon or later)? Can it explain the why and the how of existence? Why are we and how are we, regarding how existence came into being. I’m not talking the Big Bang, because we don’t know the full, exact nature of it because we haven’t gotten to the precise instant, yet. I’m talking about the how and why of the Big Bang. What happened before the BB, if that term even applies? If the multi-verse question ever gets answered, how and why did the MV come about and so on?

Will there always be some questions will, now and always, be beyond the ability for humans to comprehend?

Is it a case of:
All this is, will eventually be known.

or:

Are there stranger things in all of existence than can ever be known?

If we figure out the Theory of Everything, will we be God-like in that we now would have achieved omniscient?

Hi, this is a case of :

1. There will always be things that we probably can't model accurately at some level of fineness. A model of 1070 particles would require something more than 1070 particles most likely.

2. It seems that at this time, we can not know anything about what was prior to the BBE. It is likely that even if we do get some understanding that it will be rather uncomplete.

So the answer in general will be no.

[Dancing David]

Omniscience requires a whole lot more than simply figuring out the "Theory of Everything".


In the sense of "why did the train crash?" (subtly different from "how did the train crash?") there clearly is a "why" that, hopefully, will one day be fully explained scientifically. In the sense of "is there a profound reason for our being here?" the answer's a resounding "no".


Rubbish. Random chance might possibly have started the whole process, but thereafter it's a different story. Take evolution, for example. Far from random.

Nope. Even evolution is random.

What makes you think science should answer that question for you? I suggest your best bet is to frequent some fancy dress parties, turn on your charm and find out for yourself. Oh, just make sure Theseus and Julius are chewing much fat on the balcony whilst you're at it!


Mutation might well be, but evolution per se most certainly is not.

Yeah. Mutations are random. The selection process, especially the environment is not.

OH NOES! No, not the random thing again!


:)

[Hux]

Who are we?
A conglomeration of atomic particles that resembles (well most of us do) what we nominate 'human'.
What are we?
Same thing.
Why are we?
Not really a decent question. 'How' are we, will yield better, far more interesting results.

It's my understanding that the random mutation component of evolution occurs at the level of DNA only?

[Southwind17]

Not really a decent question. 'How' are we, will yield better, far more interesting results.
Slightly disingenuous, I'd say. It's a perfectly valid philosophical question, but good luck with that!

[Hux]

Well for me, why implies a lot more things than how. Im sorry if that's not philosophical enough for you.

How are there humans can be answered by the history of evolution.

Why there are humans, implies (to me) there was a reason. Therefore a reasoner.

[Southwind17]

Well for me, why implies a lot more things than how. Im sorry if that's not philosophical enough for you.
It's plenty philosophical enough for me - which is exactly why I commented the way I did. :boggled:

[Hux]

Im sure you feel it is. But no likely to yield any answer for it. Far more important and relevant is that a biologist can determine eventually, how life came to be. I'll leave the why to you philosophers.

[arthwollipot]

Can science explain everything (soon or later)? Can it explain the why and the how of existence? Why are we and how are we, regarding how existence came into being. I’m not talking the Big Bang, because we don’t know the full, exact nature of it because we haven’t gotten to the precise instant, yet. I’m talking about the how and why of the Big Bang. What happened before the BB, if that term even applies? If the multi-verse question ever gets answered, how and why did the MV come about and so on?

Will there always be some questions will, now and always, be beyond the ability for humans to comprehend?

Is it a case of:
All this is, will eventually be known.

or:

Are there stranger things in all of existence than can ever be known?

If we figure out the Theory of Everything, will we be God-like in that we now would have achieved omniscient?Not deliberately trying to be glib here, but...

We are the product of evolution. We have no purpose other than to engender progeny, a task which - due to our state of evolved intelligence - is now optional.

IF we figure out a TOE, then we will simply know more about the universe than we do today. It doesn't mean that we will be able to manipulate the universe as we desire - that requires a whole lot more than just understanding.

I think that it is theoretically possible to know how everything in the universe works. That does not necessarily mean that I believe that we will someday know how everything in the universe works. It simply means that I think that every process that occurs in the universe has a rational, natural explanation that we can in principle understand and quantify.

[AdinDraco]

Not deliberately trying to be glib here, but...

We are the product of evolution. We have no purpose other than to engender progeny, a task which - due to our state of evolved intelligence - is now optional.

IF we figure out a TOE, then we will simply know more about the universe than we do today. It doesn't mean that we will be able to manipulate the universe as we desire - that requires a whole lot more than just understanding.

I think that it is theoretically possible to know how everything in the universe works. That does not necessarily mean that I believe that we will someday know how everything in the universe works. It simply means that I think that every process that occurs in the universe has a rational, natural explanation that we can in principle understand and quantify.

Well said.

Perhaps there isn't a "why"

Agreed, although even is there is I'm comfortable enough with "I don't know" (or "we don't know yet") that I don't need made up answers to fill the gaps. If we make up stuff to fill the gaps, we won't seek what's really in them.

[Southwind17]

If we make up stuff to fill the gaps, we won't seek what's really in them.
You mean a little like a Ginsters cornish pastie?!

[Almo]

Who: We are what we make of ourselves.
What: self-perpetuating sentient physical beings
Why: Because we work.

[aviolet4u]

Sure does, if you're prepared to ignore that we've only been around for 4 million years or so!

that's where reincarnation and other planets come in ;)

[UnrepentantSinner]

OH NOES! No, not the random thing again!

:)

Hah! Wasn't it mijo and the issue of randomness that generated way too many threads with way too many responses (like thousands)?

[Southwind17]

Hah! Wasn't it mijo and the issue of randomness that generated way too many threads with way too many responses (like thousands)?
I remember that one (if we're thinking the same one). In fact, I'm guilty of starting it - here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94834) - 2,771 posts!

[Dancing David]

Ah, the stochastic memories!

[yy2bggggs]

We are the product of evolution. We have no purpose other than to engender progeny, a task which - due to our state of evolved intelligence - is now optional.Actually, engendering progeny isn't even a purpose. Those traits which help a species survive, and prevent extinction, are only delaying the inevitable. There's no real goal behind thriving--it's simply things doing what things do.

Engendering progeny was always optional. Extinction isn't a cosmic punishment--it's simply a fact.

[Southwind17]

Engendering progeny was always optional.
If that were true you wouldn't be here to draw that conclusion, so it must be false! ;)
But I agree with you insofar as there's no ultimate purpose.

[yy2bggggs]

If that were true you wouldn't be here to draw that conclusion, so it must be false! ;)And yet, given that there are individuals that don't have offspring, it would seem to actually be an option. And, since I am actually here drawing this conclusion, something is amiss somewhere.

[MikeSun5]

42.

[Southwind17]

And yet, given that there are individuals that don't have offspring, it would seem to actually be an option. And, since I am actually here drawing this conclusion, something is amiss somewhere.
What's amiss is the fact that you have falaciously focused on an exception to a rule as evidence to invalidate the rule, the rule being that humans need to reproduce to perpetuate. Of course, individuals can choose to exercise an option, but if every individual did you wouldn't be drawing the conclusion that you have. So, generally, there is no option.

[yy2bggggs]

What's amiss is the fact that you have falaciously focused on an exception to a rule as evidence to invalidate the rule, the rule being that humans need to reproduce to perpetuate.
No, I think you're confusing consequence for purpose. Sure, humans need to reproduce to perpetuate. Firecrackers need to be lit to blow up. And china plates need to be hit to smash into pieces.

So does that mean that the purpose of humans is to perpetuate, the purpose of firecrackers is to blow up, and the purpose of china plates is to be smashed into pieces?

Humans don't need to perpetuate. They just generally want to. Perpetuating is no more a purpose than being smashed into pieces.

[Southwind17]

No, I think you're confusing consequence for purpose. Sure, humans need to reproduce to perpetuate.
So does that mean that the purpose of humans is to perpetuate ...?
I think you believe that I'm construing "purpose" as "conscious intention" in the sense that the "purpose" of putting on a kettle is to boil water. That's not what I'm getting at. What I mean is that humans (as for any other living thing) have no objective other than to reproduce. We are programmed to reproduce and everything else instinctive is linked to achieving that sole objective. If this were not the case I doubt we'd be here debating it.

[yy2bggggs]

What I mean is that humans (as for any other living thing) have no objective other than to reproduce.
And yet, some humans don't reproduce, even if they had opportunity to. And some living things don't reproduce.

You're arguing that animals have an objective of reproducing in the first place. They don't. There simply are animals that reproduce. And there are animals that don't.

The vast majority of species die off, so even if you talk about a tendency, the tendency is for animals to die off. The ones that don't die off tend to have particular sorts of traits, is all, discussed later. These are nothing but facts--there aren't any purposes here.
We are programmed to reproduce and everything else instinctive is linked to achieving that sole objective.
You're misunderstanding how evolution works, and making it out to be a bit more mystical than it is. There's no force in the universe driving things to reproduce. There are simply facts.

Nothing is trying to make species reproduce or exist. They simply do. Traits get passed on from one generation to the next. They compete with each other in a population, in an environment, and those traits which tend to be better at propagating themselves throughout the population within that environment simply tend to saturate the population. Apply big numbers, and the tendencies exaggerate themselves.

Meanwhile, the environment changes. Some of the traits don't apply any more. Some of them even hurt. When this happens, the traits die off. There are two ways this can happen, not one. They could be replaced with traits that contribute to the species reproduction in the new environment. That's one way--but this requires that such traits exist, and they don't always exit.

That leads to the second way these traits could die off--by dragging the species by the heals into oblivion with them. That happens too.

Now, what we're left with is humans that tend to have traits that helped our ancestors reproduce in environments in the past, but not even quite this. They are, instead, traits that tended to simply saturate the population by competing with other traits, in a past environment. So many humans get married, and have kids. And we try to raise them "right".

And... we age, and we die. And we eat cheeseburgers, and we get fat, attract less mates as a result, and die even sooner. Why? Because our ancestors survived the drought. They're just facts. They are traits filtered by previous environments. The grand purpose of reproducing simply isn't there. Nothing will care if these traits lead to our extinction.

Furthermore, we don't even tend to promote males raping the nearest female as soon as they are viable for some reason... probably because reproducing isn't our "purpose". And yet, here we are.

ETA:

I'm here to talk about this, in large part, because dinosaurs didn't have traits that allowed them to survive a drastic change in environments. And that doesn't mean I'm here because my ancestors were better at reproducing--it simply means they were better adapted to that change of environments... if that change in environments had never happened, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't be here today.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Can science explain everything (soon or later)? Can it explain the why and the how of existence? Why are we and how are we, regarding how existence came into being. I’m not talking the Big Bang, because we don’t know the full, exact nature of it because we haven’t gotten to the precise instant, yet. I’m talking about the how and why of the Big Bang. What happened before the BB, if that term even applies? If the multi-verse question ever gets answered, how and why did the MV come about and so on?

Will there always be some questions will, now and always, be beyond the ability for humans to comprehend?

Is it a case of:
All this is, will eventually be known.

or:

Are there stranger things in all of existence than can ever be known?

If we figure out the Theory of Everything, will we be God-like in that we now would have achieved omniscient?

I dunno.

[Southwind17]

And yet, some humans don't reproduce, even if they had opportunity to. And some living things don't reproduce.
You're quite right - I accept that - always have done.

You're arguing that animals have an objective of reproducing in the first place. They don't. There simply are animals that reproduce. And there are animals that don't.
So what prompts an animal to reproduce then? You seem to be claiming that it simply either happens or it doesn't. That's incorrect.

The vast majority of species die off, so even if you talk about a tendency, the tendency is for animals to die off. The ones that don't die off tend to have particular sorts of traits, is all, discussed later. These are nothing but facts--there aren't any purposes here.
Sure, but they don't die off because of a lack of objective to reproduce, as you suggest. They die off because they become disadvantaged through evolution (either disadvantageous mutations on their part or advantageous mutations on the competitions' part). All animals would "like nothing better" than to reproduce (in principle), but if you don't reach sexual maturity before you're eaten that's tough - it's goodbye species.

You're misunderstanding how evolution works, and making it out to be a bit more mystical than it is. There's no force in the universe driving things to reproduce. There are simply facts.
I'm misundertstanding it?! Let me put you straight here: first, I see absolutely nothing mystical about evolution. I made it clear above what I mean when I use the word "purpose", but you seem to choose not to consider that sufficiently to understand it. Second, there might not be a "force in the universe" but there's certainly a drive within an animal (I confess, I'm not sure what the correct explanation is, but I guess it's hormonal or such like. The words "testosterone" and "estrogen" certainly come to mind).

Nothing is trying to make species reproduce or exist. They simply do.
Wrong - they "simply" don't. So far as I know, the vast majority of sexually mature animals (including humans) do not "simply" have sex for the purpose of reproduction at random. Something prompts them to do it, and I'm pretty sure that if you think about for that for just a second you'll realize what I mean! It's like eating. You don't "simply" do it. Your body prompts you to eat when your hypothalamus releases hormones. This is an evolved trait which, admittedly, "simply" happens, but it's what causes you to eat. The "purpose" of such hormone release is to encourage you to eat to survive. The release of testosterone serves a similar "purpose". I think you're getting too hung up on the use of the word "purpose" from assuming that anybody who uses it in the context of "life" must somehow be a creationist.

[yy2bggggs]

So what prompts an animal to reproduce then?Same thing that prompts Americans to eat cheeseburgers.You seem to be claiming that it simply either happens or it doesn't.You admit that sometimes it doesn't happen. And obviously, sometimes it does happen. So thanks for agreeing with me that it simply either happens or it doesn't.
Sure, but they don't die off because of a lack of objective to reproduce, as you suggest.I'm not suggesting that. I thought you were.
They die off because they become disadvantaged through evolution (either disadvantageous mutations on their part or advantageous mutations on the competitions' part).This is incorrect. Species can, and do, die off without mutations being to blame. The dinosaurs died off due to the effects of a comet. Cane toads being introduced into Australia killed off a number of species. These examples have something in common--the environment changes, the existing traits that the species have are not adapted to the environment, and they cannot adapt to the change fast enough.

But half of what you're suggesting doesn't make sense (the other half falls under this umbrella, but is only a special case for it). Mutations happen to individuals. In order for a mutation to kill of a species, said mutation would have to find its way into the population. If the mutation is the thing you're going to blame for the population's demise--and, in particular, the mutation's propensity to work against reproduction, then how is that mutation in that individual going to find its way into the population?
All animals would "like nothing better" than to reproduce (in principle), but if you don't reach sexual maturity before you're eaten that's tough - it's goodbye species.It has nothing to do with what the animals desire. It has to do with what they do. Animals which cannot even form concepts of having-sex-leads-to-offspring will have sex because... well, doesn't matter why. Any because would do. Because it's fun. Because they simply feel a strong urge when winter comes around. Because they smell a certain chemical. Because they just wanted to dance, and upon doing so, the other individual did this other thing, which made them want to do this other thing. Doesn't matter one iota--they just behave.

And if their behaviors happen to lead to offspring, whatever traits gave them those behaviors will make it to the offspring. Even if it kills their offspring, because the environment changes for the future generation, those traits will still make it to offspring.
I'm misundertstanding it?! Let me put you straight here: first, I see absolutely nothing mystical about evolution.And I see even less mystical about evolution. You see that there's an "objective" to it--I see no teleology whatsoever, except in beings which have brains capable of goal-based behaviors.
Second, there might not be a "force in the universe" but there's certainly a drive within an animal (I confess, I'm not sure what the correct explanation is, but I guess it's hormonal or such like. The words "testosterone" and "estrogen" certainly come to mind).Well, sort of. There are definitely traits, and definitely there are, within certain kinds of animals, traits that are behavioral. And some of them may even be desire to reproduce. But in this context, there's also a desire to eat cheeseburgers. In no context is there reproduction as the only objective. Reproduction is merely a consequence.

Carrying said traits is also a consequence. But this only optimizes for traits within a particular environment.
Wrong - they "simply" don't. So far as I know, the vast majority of sexually mature animals (including humans) do not "simply" have sex for the purpose of reproduction at random.I'm not entirely sure, but I would guess that the vast majority of sexually mature animals do not "simply" have sex for the purpose of reproduction, period. They "simply" have sex because of a drive. It takes a higher animal, and a lot of brainpower, to be able to recognize that having sex actually leads to reproducing, and to have sex for that purpose.

Humans definitely qualify. But we also eat cheeseburgers.
I think you're getting too hung up on the use of the word "purpose" from assuming that anybody who uses it in the context of "life" must somehow be a creationist.
Nope... and nowhere do I suggest that you're that extremely out of whack. But this is, after all, philosophy. And whereas there is certainly a context in which animals do serve an "objective", it is either an anthropomorphization, or it's a context in which it's not the only one, and not all things an animal does or even has evolved to do contribute to that objective.

The major thing to keep in mind is that we live in a constantly changing environment, that our ancestors were always in a past environment, and the traits we see in the population are driven by what makes traits saturate the population, in that past environment. And for animals with behavioral traits, it's those behaviors that wound up being selected for. Any goals we have are based on those.

[Southwind17]

Same thing that prompts Americans to eat cheeseburgers.You admit that sometimes it doesn't happen. And obviously, sometimes it does happen. So thanks for agreeing with me that it simply either happens or it doesn't.
I'm not suggesting that. I thought you were.
This is incorrect. Species can, and do, die off without mutations being to blame. The dinosaurs died off due to the effects of a comet. Cane toads being introduced into Australia killed off a number of species. These examples have something in common--the environment changes, the existing traits that the species have are not adapted to the environment, and they cannot adapt to the change fast enough.

But half of what you're suggesting doesn't make sense (the other half falls under this umbrella, but is only a special case for it). Mutations happen to individuals. In order for a mutation to kill of a species, said mutation would have to find its way into the population. If the mutation is the thing you're going to blame for the population's demise--and, in particular, the mutation's propensity to work against reproduction, then how is that mutation in that individual going to find its way into the population?
It has nothing to do with what the animals desire. It has to do with what they do. Animals which cannot even form concepts of having-sex-leads-to-offspring will have sex because... well, doesn't matter why. Any because would do. Because it's fun. Because they simply feel a strong urge when winter comes around. Because they smell a certain chemical. Because they just wanted to dance, and upon doing so, the other individual did this other thing, which made them want to do this other thing. Doesn't matter one iota--they just behave.

And if their behaviors happen to lead to offspring, whatever traits gave them those behaviors will make it to the offspring. Even if it kills their offspring, because the environment changes for the future generation, those traits will still make it to offspring.
And I see even less mystical about evolution. You see that there's an "objective" to it--I see no teleology whatsoever, except in beings which have brains capable of goal-based behaviors.
Well, sort of. There are definitely traits, and definitely there are, within certain kinds of animals, traits that are behavioral. And some of them may even be desire to reproduce. But in this context, there's also a desire to eat cheeseburgers. In no context is there reproduction as the only objective. Reproduction is merely a consequence.

Carrying said traits is also a consequence. But this only optimizes for traits within a particular environment.
I'm not entirely sure, but I would guess that the vast majority of sexually mature animals do not "simply" have sex for the purpose of reproduction, period. They "simply" have sex because of a drive. It takes a higher animal, and a lot of brainpower, to be able to recognize that having sex actually leads to reproducing, and to have sex for that purpose.

Humans definitely qualify. But we also eat cheeseburgers.

Nope... and nowhere do I suggest that you're that extremely out of whack. But this is, after all, philosophy. And whereas there is certainly a context in which animals do serve an "objective", it is either an anthropomorphization, or it's a context in which it's not the only one, and not all things an animal does or even has evolved to do contribute to that objective.

The major thing to keep in mind is that we live in a constantly changing environment, that our ancestors were always in a past environment, and the traits we see in the population are driven by what makes traits saturate the population, in that past environment. And for animals with behavioral traits, it's those behaviors that wound up being selected for. Any goals we have are based on those.
Whatever! I have neither the time nor, more importantly, the inclination to debate this with you. I can see it will simply come down to semantics.

[arthwollipot]

Actually, engendering progeny isn't even a purpose. Those traits which help a species survive, and prevent extinction, are only delaying the inevitable. There's no real goal behind thriving--it's simply things doing what things do.You're right - purpose is a word that is loaded with teleological implications. I can't think of a better one right now.

[Hux]

Thats how I feel about "Why?".

"How" has no such implications.

[arthwollipot]

Thats how I feel about "Why?".

"How" has no such implications.Possibly, but "how" suggests a purely mechanical answer, which is ultimately unsatisfying to some people.

[Southwind17]

You're right - purpose is a word that is loaded with teleological implications. I can't think of a better one right now.
Thats how I feel about "Why?".
"How" has no such implications.
It depends on context. Clearly, our legs, for example, have a "purpose", even though they aren't designed with a purpose in mind. Answering "how" about our legs goes little way to explaining them. In that sense "purpose" and "why" are essentially synonymous (grammatical usage aside). Maybe "function" would be a better word than "purpose"?

[Hux]

I am sure when science explains 'how' it will suffice as to 'why'. I just have a sneaking suspicion that when people ask 'why' they have other agendas.

Im not really explaining myself here, but its just you get to be suspicious of certain people who ask this type of question, as if it is a prelude to what they really mean. For me, 'why' implies purpose (and therefore a purposer) and 'how' suggests purposeless direction with honest observation.

[yy2bggggs]

It depends on context. Clearly, our legs, for example, have a "purpose", even though they aren't designed with a purpose in mind.
Our legs have multiple "purposes".

[Southwind17]

Our legs have multiple "purposes".
I agree, but at least we agree on the meaning of "purpose(s)" now, don't we?!

[Hux]

Possibly, but "how" suggests a purely mechanical answer, which is ultimately unsatisfying to some people.

However unsatisfying, it would have the virtue of being complete.

I begin to suspect that the OP has in mind, 'higher purpose' which is an entirely different thing.

[arthwollipot]

I am sure when science explains 'how' it will suffice as to 'why'. I just have a sneaking suspicion that when people ask 'why' they have other agendas.

Im not really explaining myself here, but its just you get to be suspicious of certain people who ask this type of question, as if it is a prelude to what they really mean. For me, 'why' implies purpose (and therefore a purposer) and 'how' suggests purposeless direction with honest observation.Yes.

However unsatisfying, it would have the virtue of being complete.

I begin to suspect that the OP has in mind, 'higher purpose' which is an entirely different thing.And yes.

I tend to get the same level of suspicion when someone asks "why are we here?". It seems to be a prelude to the statement that "I'm spiritual, but not religious". :rolleyes:

[Southwind17]

However unsatisfying, it would have the virtue of being complete.
I'm not sure I agree. I could, for example, explain to you exactly how a combustion engine comes into being. I could even show you one working. You would still be left wondering, though, why the pistons move up and down, and once you know why, you might then wonder why the combustion chamber doesn't simply explode. You might also find that slimy, runny liquid somewhat puzzling!

[Hux]

All these things would be answered by supplementary questions. You would still be telling me 'how' it works' rather than suggesting some higher purpose for the engine. I can infer plain purpose from observation.

[Southwind17]

All these things would be answered by supplementary questions.
But not "why" questions?

You would still be telling me 'how' it works' rather than suggesting some higher purpose for the engine. I can infer plain purpose from observation.
So describe how paper is produced then such that I fully comprehend the note pad sitting atop my desk.

[Hux]

But not "why" questions?


So describe how paper is produced then such that I fully comprehend the note pad sitting atop my desk.

I mean at the level of wondering about the meaning of things. Let me put it this way and forgive the grammar but I just cannot put it another way
I dont see much point in splitting hairs at the level of paper. You can always infer how to use toilet paper in many ways. But I do not mean to split hairs at that level.

How we came to be seems an entirely different question to why we came to be. The latter implies reasons; it implies, to me, a reasoner. It implies we have some reason to laud our arrival, whereas How we came to be demands nothing more than historical biological fact. Why could mean anything to anyone.

Take for instance the question, How did God create the Earth in 6 days? its a very different question to Why did God create the Earth in six days? The former, if you could be arsed to pay it any lip service, could be easily rebutted by scientific fact as being batsh8, The latter isn't really a question, begs several more and could keep theologists scuttling around amongst themselves for eternity. It is meaningless.

How is much more interesting to science. I'll leave Why to philosophers to stew in.

I prefer to keep the distinction between how and why to matters above toilet paper for instance. Wherever there is ulterior question, usually involving a deity, makes me ultra suspicious.For the mundane, there is little wiggle room between the two but at a higher level, the two questions become well defined.

Thats it. Im repeating myself. End of.

[Bikewer]

I know that Ray Kurzweil maintains that we will indeed "know everything" at some point. (He calls it the Omega Point).
Seems to me we have a ways to go in that regard....

As to notions of purpose.... Once humans evolved into sentient beings, any notion of "purpose" would be self-defined.
As far as our purpose as part of a vast universe....I can see none whatever.

[Cainkane1]

Everything about our existance is random chance. There is no why, no destiny, no fate, no master plan, and no reason for anything from the smallest sub atomic particle to the entire universe.
I was going to say something along these lines but you said it more simply and better than I would have done. You're right. All of existence is the result of random events. No intelligence behind it and no real purpose.

[Darth Rotor]

As soon as "we" know "everything" we will begin to die of boredom.

Who wants that?

[Hux]

I doubt we will know and can know everything. History has shown that for every question we conclude, several others arise.

[ORUgrad]

Well said.

Agreed, although even is there is I'm comfortable enough with "I don't know" (or "we don't know yet") that I don't need made up answers to fill the gaps. If we make up stuff to fill the gaps, we won't seek what's really in them.

Adin, perhaps those "gaps" where we make up stuff are merely "placeholder" beliefs. Perhaps what we fill those gaps with makes sense to us now but in light of new or better evidence, those placeholders will be replaced. As individual humans, what we "believe" takes up far more of our brains than what we "know." Even about knowable, provable phenomena, many of us do not have the brain capacity to understand the higher mathematics and physics necessary to comprehend the "evidence". I have learned after deconverting painfully over many years, not to become attached to my "beliefs". Instead, I do not consider any of my non provable "beliefs" as truth. Therefor, I am free to explore and learn and grow. I don't have to "defend" what I believe. If someone sees blind spots in my thinking, I can thank them for pointing them out and change my former belief to reflect reality. I'm sure there are residual beliefs as yet uncovered from my fundamentalist days. But I am not attached to my beliefs. This takes away the pressure to be "right."

So I do fill the gaps in my understanding with place holder beliefs (or none at all in some cases). But I do seek to know the truth as much as it can be known in as many different areas as I am capable. This is different from my belief about truth- which without evidence, is just my opinion.

[Hux]

All it requires is patience and no gap jumping.

[fuelair]

Can science explain everything (soon or later)? Can it explain the why and the how of existence? Why are we and how are we, regarding how existence came into being. I’m not talking the Big Bang, because we don’t know the full, exact nature of it because we haven’t gotten to the precise instant, yet. I’m talking about the how and why of the Big Bang. What happened before the BB, if that term even applies? If the multi-verse question ever gets answered, how and why did the MV come about and so on?

Will there always be some questions will, now and always, be beyond the ability for humans to comprehend?

Is it a case of:
All this is, will eventually be known.

or:

Are there stranger things in all of existence than can ever be known?

If we figure out the Theory of Everything, will we be God-like in that we now would have achieved omniscient?

Some of your questions (that you ask re: solving/answering) are not necessarily questions that have any place except in philosophy - in which case, no, science will never be able to answer them because they are purely artificial - constucted by our minds due to quirks of the meanings we have assigned to words. You have just as much reason to ask "When will we finally locate the abominable snowman?" as that is a question that has perfectly equal liklihood of being answered as answering "What is the meaning of life?" or "Why are we here?". The abominable snowman is just as much a simple mental constuct as the other two.:)