3 ms·
I don't understand how this question is relevant: "Once intelligence has evolved and observed the Universe with a single first thought, why didn't it then die
by yequalsx 10y ago
I don't understand how this question is relevant:
"Once intelligence has evolved and observed the Universe with a single first thought, why didn't it then die out?"
What proof, line of reasoning, logical principle, or evidence do you have to believe that a single first thought would lead to anything dying out? What makes you think there is some underlying Anthropic Principle at work in the universe?
Saying something could be at work is more or less saying "God did it". It doesn't explain or illuminate anything.
- vorg 10y agoIt only takes a single first thought by an intelligence to observe the Universe. Everything occurring up to then (e.g. nucleii, carbon, brains) is highly unlikely and therefore many people suggest an Anthropic Principle to explain it. Once that single first thought by an intelligence has occurred, the Weak or Strong Anthropic Principle is no longer required to explain the existence of intelligence, and so its continuance has the same unlikeliness as other life forms, i.e. ultimate extinction. The fact humans became the opposite of extinct (e.g. fire, scrolls, nukes) suggests that if the Anthropic Principle applies to the emergence of intelligence, something even "stronger" such as the Final Anthropic Principle could apply to the continuance of intelligence. I'm not saying there's an underlying Anthropic Principle in the Universe. I'm answering the question to show that the Final Anthropic Principle is as scientific a proposal as anything else.
- yequalsx 10y agoThat's not a scientific proposal. There is absolutely no reason to think that anything should cease existing simply because the first thought occurred.