Feedback and Notes

 No Gods

Latest Activity

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

Be it atheists or theists, many may feel human life may be purposeless or untenable; i.e. a never ending search or a "why" question that's perhaps not worth asking.

I think there's a viable alternative to especially the "purposeless" based outlook, with the introduction of a recent concept called "teleonomy", which is an atheistic/scientific way to describe nature in purpose driven language. (In fact, as seen on Wikipedia/teleonomy, Richard Dawkins; recently introduced the treatments “archeo” and “neo” purpose. See his video/speech "the purpose of purpose".)

Anyway, for example, using the laws of thermodynamics, we can try to objectively discover non-trivial goals that humans may undertake, as far as nature goes. (i.e. grand purposes for the human species, that reasonably transcend the desires of individual humans, while seeking to be objective, much like how Science tends to follow the evidence, aiming to describe what the cosmos actually is, rather than what people may want the cosmos to be.)

Note: One may reasonably grasp an understanding of the summaries below, without clicking on the associated wikipedia etc sources. One may however get an even more wholesome understanding, by toggling the links conveniently provided throughout the summaries.




Hypothesis A - An atheist PhD psychologist named Michael Price, hypothesizes that future humans are probably supposed to replicate universes [2017]: "Michael's variant of Cosmological Natural Selection I":


The original version of CNS I stems from a concept called Cosmological Natural Selection by physicist Lee Smolin.

  1. Cosmological Natural Selection, posits that our universe likely stemmed from a process that like evolution or biological natural selection, spun many universes; where the best universe instances emerge from universes that possess excellent replication abilities/properties, through the utilization of blackholes. Intelligent life is said to be an accidental by-product of this replication process
  2. Cosmological Natural Selection I (CNS I), additionally posits that intelligent life is a viable factor for replicating universes.
  3. Michael Price’s variant of CNS I, additionally posits that intelligent life is a likely core influence on the successful generation of replicating universes, where Michael surmises that human intelligence is the most “improbably complex” outcome of the cosmos thus far. Michael ranks modern humans to be a step in the direction towards future human intelligence, that will be able to create non-arbitrary universes. Thereafter, Michael expresses that the scientific purpose of humans is reasonably, ultimately to replicate universes like ours.


Hypothesis B - An atheist computer scientist named Jordan Bennett, hypothesizes that a grand human purpose is probably to create Artificial General Intelligence [2015]: "Why the purpose of the human species is probably to create artificial general intelligence?"

  1. In understanding Jordan's hypothesis, one may imagine entropy as a currency in an economy.
  2. Agents/organisms that get work done (access to activities) in nature, must pay up some entropy, you don't do work or have access to activities, without paying up some entropy.
  3. Highly Intelligent things (like humans) reasonably pay more entropy, compared to less intelligent things or non intelligent things, because humans do more work i.e. many cognitive tasks (thinking about science, doing scientific stuff) compared to lesser intelligences or non intelligent things.
  4. In a similar way, chimps may pay more entropy than say less intelligent things, because they do more work, or have access to more complicated activities. (More access to activities result from more access to stuff called "macrostates" in the OP's second hypothesis regarding Artificial General Intelligence.)
  5. Likewise, Artificial General Intelligence[AGI] or Artificial Super Intelligence[ASI] when built, will have access to more cognitive activities, and they'll get more work done than humans. So, they'll reasonably pay more entropy to the thermodynamic system that is nature.
  6. This means there is reasonably a pattern, nature is finding more and more ways to extract more and more entropy from activities done (i.e. entropy maximization), and nature reasonably does this by building smarter and smarter things. Humans thus likely won't be the last thing nature finds to derive entropy from work; there will likely be AGI or ASI or whatever smarter thing that follows humans. (Laws of physics permits smarter things than humans overall)

Crucially, Science can reasonably describe how organic life began (namely, via evolutionary principle etc) and also, reasonably where human life perhaps seeks to go (again, via evolutionary principle etc, as described in the hypotheses above.)




Footnotes:

  1. An atheist PhD psychologist hypothesizes that future humans are probably supposed to replicate universes [2017]: "Cosmological Natural Selection, Cosmological Evolution and the Futu...".
  2. An atheist computer scientist hypothesizes that a grand human purpose is probably to create Artificial General Intelligence [2015]: "Why the purpose of the human species is probably to create artifici...?"
  3. Video summary:

 

Views: 346

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Joey's words:

"I like this post, it means that someone out there is exploring, thinking...alas, there can be no progress without this...Thanks for the post!  Joey"

My response:

Thanks a lot.

Joey's words:

"I wanted to like this post, but I can't because it requires me to sign in to Facebook.  The only ones that are on Facebook are the hopelessly Insane.  Joey"

My response:

The post doesn't have any facebook links, and you don't' need to download anything, because the papers are view-able in the links provided. What are you talking about?

totally so - I refuse to dip into that bilge---rippa

Chris' words:

"

The human brain replicating the universe seems anthorpormorphic and self serving.

More power to to thoese who explore both the universe and human brain.  Neither of them are reconcilable without pulling in myth and therefore religion.

If you want to talk about the absurdidy of artificial intellegence  I'm more that happy to go there."

My response:

  • Your opinion regarding replication is noted. However, Science while avoiding religion, explains how a universe like ours may have emerged. 

  • Albeit, the universe replication hypothesis, although within the realm of scientific endeavour, and although rejecting religious endeavour, is still quite speculative. The second hypothesis regarding artificial intelligence does seem more reliable.

Joey's words:

"

The Universe Did Not Emerge,,,that is the thinking of a primitive.  All that exists, is existence.

Now you may, in your mind require a causal explanation for the universe...but you will never find it.  The Universe is dynamic, always changing, evolving, however, it exists in a state of dynamic equilibrium. What has apparently emerged in your mind, is the Universe as you so statically perceive it now.  Too bad.  All that exists is existence....nothing can get around, behind, in front of, or to the side of existence... Have a great day...Joey.  The Universe IS Eternal, and though you may not like that the implications for you may seem dire, that is the way it is.  Hoping for something different will bring you Squat."

My words:

Actually, I somewhat agree to the latter part of your response. 

However, you may have something confused. Science indicates that the universe may have emerged from quantum fluctuation related regimes; i.e. the laws of physics may be emergent, along with space and time. The quantum fluctuation regime is predicted to have reasonably always existed.

  • So, that quantum fluctuations always existed, does not necessitate that the universe couldn't be emergent.
  • See Lawrence Krauss' "Flavors of nothing".

Joey's words:

"What is a quantum fluctuation...Do you know?  

If such a 'quantum fluctuation' occurred, it was part of existence.  Nothing cannot be the cause of something.  Joey"

My response:


It is great that you seemed to have updated your old ideas, such that you now recognize that the universe reasonably emerged, especially in light of the evidence I recently underlined for you. I thereafter maintain my prior response.

Der Mensch begreift niemals wie anthropmorphisch er ist—

Man never comprehends how anthropomorphic his conceptions are. –

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe; (1749 – 1832)

Old Hans  beat you by a couple hundred years Chris. 

Davy's words:

"Der Mensch begreift niemals wie anthropmorphisch er ist—

Man never comprehends how anthropomorphic his conceptions are. –

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe; (1749 – 1832)

Old Hans  beat you by a couple hundred years Chris. "

My response:

Science seeks to objectively describe the cosmos, independent of human desire. This is how things like computers and other technology emerged. Said technologies may aid humans, but notably, one large reason why they work, is due to the objective nature of Science.

  • Science contrasts religion, where religious holy books have a lot of subjective/anthropomorphic  properties, devoid of scientific equations. Science instead seeks to be objective, and seeks to accurately describe the cosmos, and so Science has produced results including modern technology/quantum computers etc, which holy books or religious endeavour has failed to do.

I am fully aware of the advance of science and  technology {and the abysmal advances in understanding how to create a better society - none.} but this still doesn't mean that a scientist totally overcomes their own internal biases and beliefs which are more anthropomorphic than objective. 


Another thing if a non-scientist come up with that bold hypothesis that the universe is a living entity then the whole scientific establishment would laugh and jeer at them for making such a claim but because a scientist is making the claim and using Evolution as the basis of his claim now that is different kettle of fish. There are also Scientists that have been using evolution as a basis of a hypothesis ever since Darwin first propounded the idea.  

Oh! By the way Hans was a deeply religious person and he also stated 

" Das Wichtige bedenkt man nie genug."

“Never sufficiently do men reflect.”

Davy's words:

"I am fully aware of the advance of science and  technology {and the abysmal advances in understanding how to create a better society - none.} but this still doesn't mean that a scientist totally overcomes their own internal biases and beliefs which are more anthropomorphic than objective. 


Another thing if a non-scientist come up with that bold hypothesis that the universe is a living entity then the whole scientific establishment would laugh and jeer at them for making such a claim but because a scientist is making the claim and using Evolution as the basis of his claim now that is different kettle of fish. There are also Scientists that have been using evolution as a basis of a hypothesis ever since Darwin first propounded the idea.  

Oh! By the way Hans was a deeply religious person and he also stated 

" Das Wichtige bedenkt man nie genug."

“Never sufficiently do men reflect.”

"

My words:

1. It seems you are responding to points I did not make. Note that I didn't mention that scientists were absent internal biases. Note also, that Science works regardless of beliefs. 

  • For example, that flat earthers exist, who believe the earth is flat, does not suddenly invalidate gravitational theory. Science holds true regardless of belief.

2. Yes, anybody can probably come up with ideas. However, Scientists can come up with strongly evidenced ideas called scientific theories or scientific hypotheses, written in the language of science instead of unsubstantiated feelings and opinions.

  • The difference is that one, namely Science, tends to grant technological advancement, while the other, namely unevidenced feelings tend to grant no progress. We don't build technology based on paragraphs of feelings, but we do build based on paragraphs of scientific notation.

Joey's words:

"

There is No Scientific purpose to life nor the Human Species.  The meaning of Life is 

quite simple...To Live... It's the thrust of Life, and you know it.  Those who try to tell 

you there exist a path to some knowledge or wisdom are sycophant Want to be's.  The Truth 

is no one knows why we are here, no one.  Not the Scientist, Not the Imam, Not the Minister, 

Not the Priest, etc.  And anyone who offers an answer to that and insists it is the only answer, is

a LIAR, a Cheat and a Fraud.  They are Predatory monsters, have exactly no idea of what civilization is.

We currently don't have civilization, we have it's counterfeit, "Structured Barbarism".  That's what you're

faced with, deal with it...Oh, I guess you already are!   Joey

There is NO Path to the Truth.  The Truth is a pathless land.  Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is a criminal against humanity."

My response:

Your opinion is noted. It would be nice if you substantiated your feelings with some form of evidence.

Crucially, the OP does not offer that its contents are the only answers. I think you should google what "Scientific hypotheses" are. Remember that the OP opens by admitting that life may in fact be quite purposeless, although it seeks to draw on evidence to underline other possibilities.

Joey's words:

"I know what a Scientific hypothesis is.  It is not a theory.  It is a proposal.  If it cannot be tested, nor falsifiable...it is not science, it is conjecture, it is, at best, merely philosophical.

And philosophical means...Squat.  Do you, for example know and understand the difference between a scientific Theory vs. a scientific hypothesis.  Perhaps not.  

Joey"

My response:

  1. It seems you have a tendency, to respond to comments I did not make, I had not mentioned that scientific hypotheses were scientific theories, nor did I need to mention that. [See Wikipedia/Strawman]
  2. ..nor did I refer to Philosophy. If you understood what Scientific Hypotheses are, you probably wouldn't have blundered by claiming that the OP's hypotheses insists to propose "the only answers".
  3. Scientific hypotheses are valid ways of attempting to extend scientific work, while being substantiated by prior evidence. For example, prior to the atom's observation, there were valid scientific hypotheses that inquired about their existence.

RSS

© 2019   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service