3 ms·

And yet here we are, living and experiencing the universe. Most matter that you interact with is not in your body, and much of it is not in a usable form to yo

And yet here we are, living and experiencing the universe. Most matter that you interact with is not in your body, and much of it is not in a usable form to your body, yet it still sustains you. Why should this not hold true at a larger scale? We cannot survive in the colds of space, yet it is the tendency of matter to clump together, creating that space, which also gives us a sun and a planet and an atmosphere that was necessary for our existence. We cannot survive in the lifeless molten rock, yet we also could not have formed without its heat. It's usually at the edges of things where the most interesting and varied phenomena arise. Much of the universe is hostile to human life in its current form, yet it is also the universe that gave rise to it. Whether human newborn or microscopic insect hatchling, the experienced world is at its most incomprehensible, and the organism at its most vulnerable, at the beginning. Growth allows for greater experience, and experience can lead to greater growth. Our knowledge of what's possible for a species extends only backwards, and only on one single speck of dust. The universe has no inherent vastness, hostility, emptiness or silence without a conscious being to assign it those properties. I choose to imbue it with aspects of magnificence, intelligence, organization, perhaps even benevolence. We are not in a cosmic battle to conquer a dumb, hostile substrate; we are embedded in a rich, nurturing agar whose purpose it is, at least in part, to help us to flourish.

javajosh 11y ago
>The universe has no inherent vastness, hostility, emptiness or silence without a conscious being to assign it those properties. Agreed. I choose to imbue it with aspects of magnificence, intelligence, organization, perhaps even benevolence. Well, that's nice, but it's only possible at the space scale of, at most, the Earth. Or at least human scale - since it is you who are doing the choosing. I mean, it's fine to change the subject, but at least be aware that you are doing so. >We are not in a cosmic battle to conquer a dumb, hostile substrate; we are embedded in a rich, nurturing agar whose purpose it is, at least in part, to help us to flourish. Again, I feel like you are confusing space- and time- scales. Earth's biosphere is nurturing agar, no doubt, over a short time scale and small space scale. But the solar system, galaxy, let alone the universe at large, is most definitely not, and nor is the Earth's biosphere on any large time scale. We have arisen in this universe, apparently the first intelligent life on this planet, and on any other planet. If there is intelligent life elsewhere, we are separated by impossible vastness: to get to another star, in any form, we must harness immense energy. More than is reasonable. And once there, the lifeboat must somehow found a colony, a self-sustaining biosphere, which itself is a gargantuan task. Perhaps, though, this is a benevolent universe: maybe those great chasms of space protect intelligences from each other. It means that if any of us manage to make the journey, and we discover each other, it will be a meeting of great good fortune, and the travellers will always be at the mercy of the inhabitants of the destination star. There is hope for long-term survival of intelligence, but it is very, very small.
- filoeleven 11y ago
  > Well, that's nice, but it's only possible at the space scale of, at most, the Earth. Or at least human scale - since it is you who are doing the choosing. Hmm, my intent was to expressly claim those things at large scales, or more accurately, at all scales. It's just that it is easier for us to understand e.g. the organization and benevolence only in the things which are of the most immediate usefulness: we understand the biosphere as a resource because we can use that now, whereas we don't really understand how to harness the full power of a star because it's too far beyond our current capabilities. > Earth's biosphere is nurturing agar, no doubt, over a short time scale and small space scale. But the solar system, galaxy, let alone the universe at large, is most definitely not, and nor is the Earth's biosphere on any large time scale. I agree with you about Earth's biosphere space-wise though perhaps not time-wise. But if Earth is a cradle of intelligent life, surely we are not meant to stay here indefinitely? Even now the wild idea of mining asteroids, once relegated to science fiction, is reaching the point of feasibility. What was previously useless (not to mention unknown) to us is becoming useful, and will act as a stepping stone (or a catapult) to enable some other far-fetched ideas to come closer to manifestation. I believe this is a pattern that does not necessarily end. > If there is intelligent life elsewhere, we are separated by impossible vastness: to get to another star, in any form, we must harness immense energy. More than is reasonable. And once there, the lifeboat must somehow found a colony, a self-sustaining biosphere, which itself is a gargantuan task. There was a time, or more accurately various times for various peoples, that crossing an ocean was almost beyond imagination. As we continue to gain in knowledge and understanding of how the universe works, especially our understanding of spacetime, these problems become far less intractable. Interstellar travel is just a bigger ocean. The scale of the metaphor is logarithmic but so is the pace of the growth of our collective intelligence. My personal belief is that we will find a way around the immense time and energy requirements that we currently believe are necessary for interstellar travel. Terraforming is the harder problem: understanding ecosystems is IMO orders of magnitude harder than understanding fundamental physics, and building them from scratch seems like a pipe dream even for a dreamer like me. But if we figure out how to travel smarter then it becomes more a question of finding the most Earth-like planets that already have much or most of what we need. Still not easy, but probably easier and faster than trying to terraform Mars. > Perhaps, though, this is a benevolent universe: maybe those great chasms of space protect intelligences from each other. This seems plausible to me also. Seeds need a volume to grow in that is often tens of millions times larger than the seed itself. There could be a cosmic ecosystem that we are still too young to see or understand, and we may not catch a glimpse of it until we have spread through the stars. > There is hope for long-term survival of intelligence, but it is very, very small. If you mean small hope for human intelligence, then I would agree. I think this has less to do with the harshness of the universe out there and more to do with our own species' maladaptive behavior patterns. We are in a species-scale moment of crisis, which is to say one that has been going on for hundreds or thousands of years and may last a few hundred more, but there's no question in my mind that we need to get our shit together now if we want the species (and/or its children) to survive. This is why I think it is important to view the universe through a lens of possibility: it gives us a direction to steer towards. A more hopeful outlook inspires activity to push towards a better outcome. Thanks for responding!

javajosh 11y ago

>The universe has no inherent vastness, hostility, emptiness or silence without a conscious being to assign it those properties. Agreed. I choose to imbue it with aspects of magnificence, intelligence, organization, perhaps even benevolence. Well, that's nice, but it's only possible at the space scale of, at most, the Earth. Or at least human scale - since it is you who are doing the choosing. I mean, it's fine to change the subject, but at least be aware that you are doing so. >We are not in a cosmic battle to conquer a dumb, hostile substrate; we are embedded in a rich, nurturing agar whose purpose it is, at least in part, to help us to flourish. Again, I feel like you are confusing space- and time- scales. Earth's biosphere is nurturing agar, no doubt, over a short time scale and small space scale. But the solar system, galaxy, let alone the universe at large, is most definitely not, and nor is the Earth's biosphere on any large time scale. We have arisen in this universe, apparently the first intelligent life on this planet, and on any other planet. If there is intelligent life elsewhere, we are separated by impossible vastness: to get to another star, in any form, we must harness immense energy. More than is reasonable. And once there, the lifeboat must somehow found a colony, a self-sustaining biosphere, which itself is a gargantuan task. Perhaps, though, this is a benevolent universe: maybe those great chasms of space protect intelligences from each other. It means that if any of us manage to make the journey, and we discover each other, it will be a meeting of great good fortune, and the travellers will always be at the mercy of the inhabitants of the destination star. There is hope for long-term survival of intelligence, but it is very, very small.

filoeleven 11y ago
> Well, that's nice, but it's only possible at the space scale of, at most, the Earth. Or at least human scale - since it is you who are doing the choosing. Hmm, my intent was to expressly claim those things at large scales, or more accurately, at all scales. It's just that it is easier for us to understand e.g. the organization and benevolence only in the things which are of the most immediate usefulness: we understand the biosphere as a resource because we can use that now, whereas we don't really understand how to harness the full power of a star because it's too far beyond our current capabilities. > Earth's biosphere is nurturing agar, no doubt, over a short time scale and small space scale. But the solar system, galaxy, let alone the universe at large, is most definitely not, and nor is the Earth's biosphere on any large time scale. I agree with you about Earth's biosphere space-wise though perhaps not time-wise. But if Earth is a cradle of intelligent life, surely we are not meant to stay here indefinitely? Even now the wild idea of mining asteroids, once relegated to science fiction, is reaching the point of feasibility. What was previously useless (not to mention unknown) to us is becoming useful, and will act as a stepping stone (or a catapult) to enable some other far-fetched ideas to come closer to manifestation. I believe this is a pattern that does not necessarily end. > If there is intelligent life elsewhere, we are separated by impossible vastness: to get to another star, in any form, we must harness immense energy. More than is reasonable. And once there, the lifeboat must somehow found a colony, a self-sustaining biosphere, which itself is a gargantuan task. There was a time, or more accurately various times for various peoples, that crossing an ocean was almost beyond imagination. As we continue to gain in knowledge and understanding of how the universe works, especially our understanding of spacetime, these problems become far less intractable. Interstellar travel is just a bigger ocean. The scale of the metaphor is logarithmic but so is the pace of the growth of our collective intelligence. My personal belief is that we will find a way around the immense time and energy requirements that we currently believe are necessary for interstellar travel. Terraforming is the harder problem: understanding ecosystems is IMO orders of magnitude harder than understanding fundamental physics, and building them from scratch seems like a pipe dream even for a dreamer like me. But if we figure out how to travel smarter then it becomes more a question of finding the most Earth-like planets that already have much or most of what we need. Still not easy, but probably easier and faster than trying to terraform Mars. > Perhaps, though, this is a benevolent universe: maybe those great chasms of space protect intelligences from each other. This seems plausible to me also. Seeds need a volume to grow in that is often tens of millions times larger than the seed itself. There could be a cosmic ecosystem that we are still too young to see or understand, and we may not catch a glimpse of it until we have spread through the stars. > There is hope for long-term survival of intelligence, but it is very, very small. If you mean small hope for human intelligence, then I would agree. I think this has less to do with the harshness of the universe out there and more to do with our own species' maladaptive behavior patterns. We are in a species-scale moment of crisis, which is to say one that has been going on for hundreds or thousands of years and may last a few hundred more, but there's no question in my mind that we need to get our shit together now if we want the species (and/or its children) to survive. This is why I think it is important to view the universe through a lens of possibility: it gives us a direction to steer towards. A more hopeful outlook inspires activity to push towards a better outcome. Thanks for responding!