I don't get on mingle unless I have nothing else going on.
Sorry about the delay in response, I'm still interested in the discussion.
You added a lot to discuss so this will take me some time to respond, bear with me if I repeat myself a bit.
I'll do small chunks instead of one grand response.


Why does the Universe need have those things?
Isn't it an assumption based on what we think it needs?
Why does the Universe need a reason to be?
Do we NEED a reason to be or do we find a reason to be after being?
Was it your choice to be born a male or female?
Was it your choice to survive or die as an infant?
We exist BEFORE we have a reason to exist.
Why would we think the Universe is any different since we are part of that same Universe?


Assume is the only thing we can do. We don't have access to the whole of the Universe. However, what we do have access to is the whole of our own existence and our existence which is part of the Universe is dictated by cause an effect whether directed or not. It is therefore safe to assume, based on our own existence, the Universe also results in present reality from multiple conditions and intents.


This defines the conditions of chaos and cause & effect.
Chaos and Cause & Effect can be random or generated by intent.
You can create a random cause and effect stream of events on purpose.
A new reality resulting from a directed event which affects random conditions in a timeline. As events move away from the source they affect reality in an unpredictable manner (chaos). The initial, directed change continues to create change as different things are affected.


This is founded on the assumption that our concept of math and logic is universal. An assumption based on insufficient universal evidence. Human math and logic is only founded on human math and knowledge. The ratio of difference is 1:1. We would need to find and then be able to communicate with another intelligent life form in this Universe to break the 1:1 ratio to a 2:1 or 1:2 ratio. A a whole, what if intelligent life in this Universe were a 1:1 trillion against us? We don't know of another intelligent life form let alone all intelligent life forms in the Universe. Thus, all math and logic we understand is but an assumption, therefore, invalid. We assume its accurate because we make it accurate, not because it is actually accurate.

Take the speed of light as an example. According to our logic, nothing can exceed the speed of light but that is not true. Thought exceeds the speed of light. Imagination exceeds the speed of light. Imagination and thought exist in the Universe so it is real. It is however, not physical. But, neither is a force carrier wave. Neither is gravity or electromagnetism.
There may be a place in this Universe or another Universe where thought is physical, gravity is an elementary particle and thermodynamics is a substance. We can't know because we don't have access to the Whole of the Universe to know.


Why do we NEED to determine anything? Perhaps the actual determination has already been made but we are not privy to the details because we don't need to know? Perhaps we exist in this Universe for a different function. Perhaps we are an insignificant momentary result of cause and effect of a far more grand reality than we could ever hope to understand during our short existence?

This would indicate life on this planet is but a condition of a bigger, more complex condition in the Universe and all our thought processes are significant only to us.
All human knowledge is less than 1 million years old in a Universe which is billions of years old. Individually, we exist merely 100 years or so. A lifetime feels like a long time to us but to the reality of the Universe it is a flash. How significant are we? How can our determinations be significant? Its all relative to the observer.


The concept of zero is a man-made construct of logic. Zero in math distorts the math.
Try to imagine a numbering system in which zero does not appear. (there may be a system but I am not a mathematician)
Imagine all numbers are 1-9. The only reason we count to 10 is because we have 10 digits on our hands and 10 digits on our feet. What would happen to math if we had 7 digits or 13 digits? Baseline ten would not exist. Each of the 13 digits would have a value of its own creating a different baseline.

Likewise, our time logic is based on Earth time. The second, minute, hour, day, year and light year are all based on time as humans experience it while being trapped on this planet. If we evolved on a different planet our concepts of time would be different. Our measurement therefore would be different. A light year is how far light travels in one year. On a different planet, with a different year, that specification changes.
So, if our math and our time is specific to our evolution, what else may be specific to our evolution?

We also experience selective existence thru ignorance. 2,000 years ago, atoms did not exist to us. They existed in reality but not in our logic patterns. Thru imagination, thought, observation and testing we 'learned' a reality relative to our ability to understand but we had no idea there were elementary component parts of those atoms.
We assume because two things can exist other things must exist. Assume but do not know.
In this Universe there are great voids between super galactic structures. We don't know if anything can exist in these voids. We can't detect anything so it is a null void. It is represented as zero in math but something could exist but we just may not be able to detect it. Dark Matter/Dark Energy is one example of a null which we reason to be something. In logic, that null has a value of zero but as soon as we assign it a value it becomes something.
In reality is is still nothing but we treat it as something. How we define it has little to do with reality and much more to do with inaccurate logic.
Granted, the whole Dark Energy/Dark Matter discussion is tangent from a multiverse discussion but it makes my point.
Our understanding of reality is an assumption because we don't have access to all the facts.


How do we know what is possible by nature when we have a limited view?
How do we know what naturally occurring inherent characteristics exist in nature if nature is all of reality?
Humans have so little facts about nature, reality and the Universe everything we think we know is an assumption and most are not even very good assumptions. We are constantly revising the facts we thought we knew.

Our knowledge is limited but it is not useless. The fact we can use our knowledge for invention and innovation means at our scale and sphere of influence, our knowledge is accurate enough. But since there is innovation, revisions and ... "updates", our knowledge is far from complete. It is all curiosity driven.

Being part of the Universe, having curiosity, the Universe possesses curiosity. Trial and error is a component part of nature. The Universe full of failed stars, planet and moons. A Universe which is a product of conscious creation would not have failed anything after billions of years of building.
However, a Universe of cause and effect would.
The initial change of state which initiated the Universe may or may not have been a conscious decision by something. The resultant cause and effect could give is our present universal reality without further direction.

Star formation (consequently, everything related to star formation as well) is cyclic. Dust gathers by gravitation effects, it clumps together creating more and more gravity. This attracts more and more mass until it achieves enough mass to cause an atomic reaction. The reaction converts matter to new elements and over time grows larger and hotter till it dies. When it dies, some stars explode distributing those new elements of 'dust and gas' with then again pass thru the another birth, life, death cycle.
Random cause and effect. No set schedule, no specific location, no set duration. Not directed.

Moving along...


From what you wrote I have issue with a few concepts but I'm not arguing, merely giving an alternative view for consideration.

A 1973 Ford F100 custom pickup with a V8 is not likely to spontaneously generate, I agree. But the creativity, invention and innovation which makes it possible came from a species which did. Cause and Effect.
Earth, DNA-based life, etc... are all results of star formation and its effects. A cycle of random mass interactions as atoms and elements gather together by gravity and energy. Molecules which form DNA strands for life were created and combined by the influences of star formation. Life on this planet as most of us know it is a result of a chemical imbalance of the first dominate life forms with formed on the earth Earth. We are second generation life.
Originally, before aerobic life became the dominate life form on this planet anaerobic life (cyanobacteria) was the dominate life form. Aerobic life is the by-product of that. Rust is a by-product of oxidation. On that early Earth, iron did not rust, there was not enough oxygen.
Anaerobic life still exists in the present day near black smokers and deep under the Earth. Life as we know it now is not the result of a plan or creativity, merely cause and effect.
So, anything created by life today is a result of cause and effect.

Again, I refer to my thoughts that the Universe may have initiated by an a directed act but everything after that act is but a result of cause and effect.


Once again, an assumption based on not enough evidence. Don't get me wrong, an assumption has an equal chance of being correct as it does being wrong so who can say without proof positive either way? Something obviously did happen because the Universe and reality does exist - we live it.

Complexity and simplicity is relative to the observer. Working as a mechanic trying to explain a job to a customer is a personal example of this. What I saw as simple, they saw a complex. I've had customers tell me I worked magic on their car when all I did was follow a procedure. To them it was happenstance, to me it was directed. Relative to the observer.

To try to define any process as directed or random without understanding all the facts and conditions is a moot point. Either assumption could be right or wrong.


Oh crap, here comes the scripture nuts.

Religion is not a good discussion and while I don't mind mentioning "God" every once in awhile, lets not get into all that religion stuff.


It would be interesting to read what you think, how you would define this.

Let me try to define it too...
The Universe is a sphere of matter and energy expansion from a single point of change.
Right now, the Universe is still in expansion and we are riding that expansion.
In addition to an explosion of matter there is a inner expansion of cause and effect in all directions and at all scales.

So, unlike an exploding bomb in slow motion which has a definite initialization point, this ...'explosion' is like a multitude of explosions within, around and thru other explosions. The 'explosion' is still happening.
The energy is all the explosions and all the matter within. As a common denominator the baseline of the Universe is energy and it is one.

In the sense energy is one and the Universe is energy, everything of that energy is of that Universe. So everything within the Universe is connected.

The order of connection of the events which occur as the Universe expands is physically random but unified by energy. Our feeling of connection with the Universe is the connection of energy.

Physically, we are specks in a larger reality of which we have only a tiny, insignificant view relative to our size, duration and field of observation.
We can't step outside for a whole view. We are seeing it all from within.

Again, science as we currently understand it.
When considering universes using quantum probability every instance generates a multitude of paths radiating outward from that instance.
The path of observation dictates the reality of that path.
Change one path from any one instance you get a new path of reality.
In essence, all possible paths from all instances have potential to become reality. This would indicate multitudes of dimensions with different paths of reality.
Since a single path becomes reality, it is impossible to make scientific observations or measurements which would prove those multiple realities exist.
At least by our current understanding and logic.

A parallel universe is something different.
Parallel means exactly the same running its own path exactly as the other.
Think parallel lines ========.

Consider this...
The table of elements are incomplete.
The elements which make up the table of elements were created in stars.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe; helium is second. However, after this, the rank of abundance does not continue to correspond to the atomic number; oxygen has abundance rank 3, but atomic number 8. All others are substantially less common.
At one point in time the table of elements would only have had 2 elements in it. The other elements we know about were result of cause and effect over time.
New elements are still being created in third and fourth generation stars.
They do not appear on the table of elements because they do not yet exist and may not exist for another million or billion years. As we explore space we may find elements which do not occur on Earth or in this star system. They may be trace amounts to sparse to locate by any other means but direct gathering.

The table of elements proves nothing about the nature of the Universe. It only proves what we have found and categorized on this planet in this star system. Plus, even that is incomplete.

No need to reply if you don't want.

The only reason I mentioned God here is that the idea of parallel universes of every description was put forth in opposition of the idea of a creator. That word tends to make most cringe, however -and even I dread the arrival of scripture nuts.

One reason is that they pretty much make stuff up to fit their view -such as that God must have made the Earth, etc., with the appearance of age -which is based on a young earth -which isn't actually scriptural.

This version of multiple universes, however, actually came from similar folks on the supposedly "scientific" side -and is likewise not scientific-though very loosely based on a scientific idea.

No worries.

Believe it or not, My idea of God plays a large role in how I see the Universe.

It has to do with the force which initiated the first change of state in a static reality which set the cause and effect of the Universe in motion.

Since all universal laws which dictate reality stem from that initial change of state, something had to exist before the Universe occurred.
That something could be called a puppy, a shoe, a force or God. Since it is unknowable, I prefer God as the chosen action.

This stems from my religion driven years and the idea I was taught where God is everywhere, everywhen, the alpha and the omega.
The conflicts which caused me to abandon religion started in my inability to put together a reasonable explanation supporting the scientific and the religion.
Scientifically, I can fathom how the Universe unfolded but I can justify the initial action which caused the change in state. For that, I have to leave science and embrace my imagination. My imagination, based on my life experiences and beliefs, logically substitutes that unknowable force or action with God.

Just like any fanatic can twist their head just so and make religion about something other than what is written exactly, I can twist my head just so and find how science supports religion and vice versa.
To me, science and religion are not two separate things. They are the same.

If God (or a directed act) created the Universe then everything which is the Universe is of God (or that directed act). This means all the sciences which define the Universe are too.

If the act encompasses all that could be, there could only be one Universe but if that's the case, where was that God (or directed act) before the Universe occurred? Reason dictates something else exists beyond this Universe and if something else exist beyond this Universe it is possible other Universes also exist above, beside, below or within this one.
In the sense that 'multi' means more than one, there must be at least two.

Personally, I considered ideas put forth by the evolution side of things and how they might apply -and would be rooted in -in a pre-universe environment.

One proponent has said something to the effect of 'In the beginning was simplicity" and 'If Earth life was caused by another intelligence, that intelligence must have evolved.'

The same would apply regardless of number of universes of any description.

I noticed a tendency to think of the initiation of our universe as THE beginning. However, I also noticed that the singularity which became our universe could not have been simple DUE TO the immediately-resulting fine tuning/specificity/purposeful complexity.

If we consider the path from simplicity to complexity as a cone shape -the point being the most simple state/s possible -the widening cone being increased complexity of that initial simplicity (that which now exists must be that which already existed).....

....then the singularity would not be that initial point, but some increased amount of complexity afterward.

It is what must have happened between initial simplicity and the singularity which interests me.

As that which now exists is the same which did previously, reverse engineering is possible -but humans have been focusing on the singularity/big bang thus far.

Intelligence must spontaneously develop. It must evolve in the broadest sense of the word. It must move from simplicity to complexity. One aspect of that complexity is self-awareness. Complex intelligence must develop before self-awareness as we tend to understand it -as it requires complex comprehension.

Every new state makes even more states possible -and every state is indicative of what must have preceded it.

From OUR baseline -complex nature already in motion -we see that certain things are possible in our absence -and certain things require our existence, which also indicate that we exist as self-aware, creative intelligence.

When considering THE baseline of simplicity compared to the present universe, we DO HAVE A USUAL SUSPECT. It is perfectly logical and scientific to consider the idea of some sort of intelligence being responsible for the universe itself -because it DOES exhibit the same attributes as our creations compared to present nature.

The tricky part is that various components of intelligence can exist somewhat separately -not/not yet arranged as a "mind" -though they cannot exist completely separately overall. Some can be somewhat augmented in relation to the others.

However, the most basic aspects of everything always existed.
The very fact that there is any interaction at all is the basis of awareness, intelligence, self as opposed to environment, etc.

Interaction itself IS A MOST BASIC SELF -AND ALSO A MOST BASIC ENVIRONMENT.

More later

I agree but with a few notes, if you will?

From the intelligence of life perspective it all makes sense, what you are saying.
However there comes an issue of inanimate objects in the Universe initiating cause and effect which is not intelligence driven.

In the cone scenario of intelligent design and purpose we exist in a reality where design and purpose are not evident by our perception.
If the design purpose directed scenario has truth, so does the random undirected cause and effect scenario.

I believe both scenarios existed, preuniverse. Perhaps a cone within a cone with a single point? If that's the case it would indicate the 'God' force would have characteristics of both phenomenon as evidenced in the resulting condition.

Directed action AND random action both exist in this Universe (as we can understand it). Perhaps there is a missing data set? Perhaps the two conditions are related in some hidden way we have yet to figure out?

It is strange how most people focus on the creation of the Universe and not the end of the Universe. The path of time is foward moving to us. While we can try to understand the past to predict a future the focus of that understanding is deadlocked in the past and few people try to figure out what will happen at the end.

I mentioned one possible scenario earlier. About the last black hole freezing to absolute zero. A super-ultra massive black hole consisting of all the matter which made up the Universe. Extremely tiny by comparison but super-ultra dense.
It freezes solid to the point no movement occurs at any scale.
What then?
It remains like that, outside of time (time is movement), until some force (God?) once again causes a change in its frozen state initiating a new cascade of energy and mass, force and waves which evolves into a new Universe.
Cyclic, just like star formation and galaxy formation.

Perhaps, within that realm of frozen, where time does not exist lies a force which has properties of both intelligence and reaction? A force which is not governed by what we understand as universal forces. Operating below, beside or between time or cause and effect.

I like the cone within a cone idea.

I have been considering the difference between animate and inanimate, directed or random, etc.

Perhaps a better distinction is between non-decision and decision.

True decision is the point at which there may truly be more than one possible outcome. As I define it, it is the point at which some portion of reality can be modelled in memory/imagination, understood enough to be altered in memory/imagination and then applied to create a new configuration.

Animate vs. inanimate may not be a very clear distinction -depending on exact definition used.

Consider why a rock might be deemed inanimate and a human animate.


Basically, the rock does not appear to do anything -does not move -is not dynamic -whereas humans are dynamic, etc.

However. Every component of every rock actually is moving. The same is true of any similar collection of atoms which appear to us to not do anything -or anything complex.
Furthermore, we are made of the same thing as rocks or whatever.
The difference is how things are arranged -and if it were not for the fact that the inanimate is actually animate in a simple way, we could not be animate in a complex way.

If we consider conscious decision as a requirement of "animate", then it absolutely must be preceded by -and is made possible by arrangement of -the inanimate (but dynamic in a simple way).

In how I see this, organic life is instructed in how it develops because the DNA chain dictates/determines the body plan.
However, I can't fathom DNA chains as intentional or directed because in this Universe, on this very planet, there are mistakes in DNA chains which lead to birth defects, some of which kill the organism.

It seems non-productive and wasteful to start a cell replication sequence if the result kills the organism. Since all DNA sequences are not perfect (as in from a planned intentional direction), I see life as random and unpredictable.
More of a cause and effect than a planned execution of intent.

Plus you have the evidence of life on this planet evolving in unplanned, non-directed paths of evolution which has dead ends and successes.
Since two-headed turtles, for example, have existed why are they not common? They are a failed evolutionary shoot of the turtle genetic path. A mistake. Turtles have existed for a long time. Why are turtle mistakes still being made?
Because life and the mechanisms which dictate life are random cause and effect not an intentional design.

I misused the animate/inanimate words for my intention.
I was thinking self-animated/non self-animated.
Self-animated implies a directed movement verses just movement.
My mistake.
The person sets the ISS to a spin in orbit vs an asteroid colliding with another which causes both to start spinning different. Both are animated movement but one is intentional and the other is random cause and effect.

If there was intent behind DNA -which would mean intent in the way atoms interact, really -it would apparently be to create a system which causes life forms to change and adapt to varying environments -for the purpose of diversity/beauty, etc., and survival of life ...... but without the necessity to micromanage those life forms.

It is an automated program which does those things, regardless.

It is also suited to do so within the relatively closed environment of a planet. When individual life forms die, they are literally recycled -so running out of material is not a problem.

Interestingly, it is not actually well suited for humans -at least modern humans. We have attributes which cause great problems other species could not cause -which can only be solved by permanence/continuation of individual lives.

Our mental capacity far exceeds the ability of our bodies -especially compared to any other earthly life form -which highlights the need for both improved bodies and permanence of those bodies which would allow us to apply lessons learned permanently. Successive generations dying out is one of the most important reasons humans make the same mistakes over and over -and can not stop our path to self-destruction.

As for intent.

An imperfect environment -or an environment subject to imperfection -is a useful teaching tool.
If we are handed a rubik's cube with one color on each side, there is nothing to do or learn. Only when it is scrambled can we learn to solve it.

Life and its environment are a very complex system. Systems can be made perfect, but an otherwise-perfect system can be adversely affected unless that is addressed in the design. Our environment and life forms may be subject to mistakes, but humans have a greater ability to affect things adversely than simple mistakes -which also means we have the ability to understand and create systems -eventually perfect ones.

All result in our becoming masters of reality-not merely being subject to it.

Otherwise, we could be ignorant, happy humans who live a while and die. No problems, but no future as anything greater.

Hmmm...
I get what yer sayin but I don't see the same connections as you.
Humans, compared to nature are feeble and dimwitted.

I wonder if you have ever heard of fractals in nature?
Arthur C Clarke made a video about fractals called Colours of Infinity.
(A bit of trivia - Pink Floyd does the sound track for it)
I looked and it is on Youtube to watch for free.
Its basically a documentary focusing on the Mandelbrot Set and its influence in natural systems. Mathematics to us, nature to the Universe.
This show relates the science of the M-Set to nature in a way that seems to identify the hand of God in the design of the universe itself.
Here's the video (about an hour run time)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyeR19m8gGk

The question is; Did nature use math or do we associate math to a natural process?
If you drop a paint filled balloon from a building, can math predict the pattern of pain which ensues? Once the pain stops and the pattern is examined, math can explain it (eventually) but math did not create the pattern, it was cause and effect. The action was directed but the pattern was natural.
Once the balloon is dropped it may strike any object on its way down or many objects or no objects. Dropping it did not intend its path.
Is this what yer saying?

If so, consider this a moment;
A rock from outside the solar system enters the system. It collides with Earth and its impact crater makes a pattern in the Earth. The rock was not created to strike the Earth. The rock was not directed (I hope) to strike the Earth. The fact it struck the Earth is a random event due to cause and effect. We can look at the path after the fact and arrive at a conculsion, supported by math and science which explains why it struck the Earth but that is all. The science (and math) can't tell us if it was directed or not.

Bear with me, I have time right now but this weekend is full and I won't be on here from Friday morning till at least Monday. (Yes, that is a planned, directed event, LOL)


Actually, that is pretty accurate as to what happens, basically.

However, there is another condition which occurrs with DNA and life.
Even when the environment is favorable, DNA gets it wrong sometimes.
Nature gets in the way of the purpose of DNA. Its why after 2 million years of an established body plan birth defects still occur.
I remember reading something years ago which explained why we age and die. It has to do with cell deterioration over time, the reproduction of cells. Like taking a whole bunch of photocopies and over time a copy of a copy of a copy and so on breaks down the body's ability to make thriving copies. So, we age and die.


That's impossible to say because we only have ourselves as test subjects.
We can't know the mental capacity of each other let alone a different species. For all we know, a fern might be more intelligent than us.
The standard model of intelligence is based on a model of ONE - US.
Everything we classify as intelligence is based on what we determine as intelligent.


Only a static closed system can be made perfect. Dynamic open systems can't.
There are too many variables.


Very few people understand very few systems in nature. Some systems are so complex we may never understand them. But, eventually is undefined. Eventually we might shed our physical existence for one of energy. If trans-humanism's mind uploading were to be perfected we could get close. Problem is, that would be a physically bound electronic facsimile at best.


We are already masters of reality. We manipulate reality thru invention and innovation. We can create plasma which is hotter than the Sun (Z Machine at Sandia National Laboratories). We can create anti-matter, slam elementary particles together and release Higgs bosons. We manipulate the reality around us all the time. Just not all reality on all scales.
Termites also manipulate reality. Beavers build dams. Birds make nests. All of it is being masters of reality but none of it is being masters of all reality on all scales.

The human body plan is evolving right now. The evolution is not a body style change. It is an environmental adaption change. We are evolving to live in climate controlled spaces. We live in heated and air conditioned homes. Right now, we won't die if we are not in climate control but eventually, we may not be able to survive. Imagine modern man living in Greenland wearing only animal pelts living in a cave. Most people would die. Some people would die if the lived a long duration outside with no clothes on where they live right now. They would succumb to hypothermia or heat stroke.

As long as our species survives we will evolve. Our body plan is not a finished product. We live in a random, dynamic Universe which changes constantly. You abruptly change anything we face extinction if we can't adapt. Recently, we adapt artificially. We use our technology to circumvent extinction. We focus on technology to solve environmental obstacles and other animals focus changing their body plan (grow thicker skin). But, that natural adaptation is not directed or intended. The organism responds to the unpredictable environmental changes which would otherwise kill the organism.

The egg came before the chicken. The environment changed and the organism mutated to become chicken-like in its offspring. The chicken-like then mated with another chicken-like and the line of offspring became the chicken. But, the chicken is still evolving right now.
There are no 'pure' purebreds. Yes, even dogs have evolved over time. So have we.

I have no idea if 'pure' purebreds can even exist anywhere in this Universe but if multiverses exist, it might be possible they exist there. Thing is, that Universe would be very different than ours.

I find a similarity in how people view multiverses with how people view extraterrestrial aliens.
Life on this planet is indicative to life on this planet. Life in this Universe is indicative to life in this Universe.

A lifeform which evolves on a different planet was subjected to environmental variables specific to that planet. Gravity, atmosphere, atmospheric pressures, radiation, elements, salinity, photo-sensitivity, spectrum, rotation of the planet, too many variances to list.

Our eyes evolved from photosensitive cells on our heads. On a different planet in a different orbit around a different star with a different wavelength in a different atmosphere life may have super-sharp eyesight or merely light sensitive patches of cells. We have examples of this already, right here on this planet.

The conditions of this Universe may attribute this Universe's standards. A different Universe, with its own laws and conditions may have a totally different set of standards. Its very unlikely it would match this one given the complexity of the bodies populating ours.

While we may someday find an Earth-LIKE planet it will have differences. Differences which would shape its own evolutionary past.
This is why I feel there will never be a parallel Universe or a parallel Earth.

Have a great New Year!

They have actually found life forms which are able to truly learn, but do not possess the systems once thought necessary at a specific level -so there must be similar systems arranged from smaller things. I can't remember the particular level in that case, but something like the idea that systems we thought required arrangement of atoms might be arranged from subatomic particles. Anything that can be arranged similarly at any level can perform the same function.


A fern may be more intelligent than a human (certainly in the less is more/ignorance is bliss department if they are not), but the necessary systems for it have not been found -and they have very limited ability to express it by interaction or manipulation of environment. Technically, very generally, we can reference non-intelligence to measure intelligence, but it is not impossible that a fern's intelligence exists/resides at a different level.

The ability of humans to alter the environment extremely so they survive when other species would not is actually the same which has allowed us to begin to self-evolve... to alter our body plan by decision -not simply waiting for evolution.

Our capacity to understand to the degree we do is a huge step toward fitness to survive -but those steps actually lead to the ultimate fitness for survival.... complete invulnerability. From that angle, immortality is all that evolution could hope to become.

Furthermore, the fact that we can even imagine the concept sets us apart -and also indicates that it is the path we will consciously take in the future. We now purposefully work toward becoming less mortal/vulnerable.


Ughhh -bunch of text deleted -more later

Have a good one!

While I agree on a human based logic my agreement is also invalid because it is based on human logic.

On this planet, this limited system unique only to this world we have examples of so-called non-intelligence thriving for hundreds of millions of years. Just look at the fauna surrounding us.
In comparison to some species, humans are new kids on the block. While we measure life and intelligence based on our example it doesn't mean that example is accurate.

A crocodile doesn't do or think things like we do yet that specific organism line has lasted hundreds of millions of years. Dinosaurs lasted hundreds of millions of years yet we see no monuments to their intelligence or technology in the fossil records.

Humans, being the exception to the rule, break the patterns you deem universal.
Plus, at a mere two million years, humans also stand on the edge of species annihilation. Our logic and reason prevent up from killing ourselves but we constantly flirt with disaster. Our extinction will be of our own making.

Our logic and reason changes our habitat and our environment to hostile.
Over-population, global war, super viruses, depletion of resources, extinction of flora and fauna. Our expansion of civilization reduces Earth's natural environment. We are essentially slowly paving the planet. How logical is that?

The difference is, we are affecting the entire planet's habitat. Our unending need to study, test, evaluate and change the world around us is an invasive act with dire consequences. The fact most of our species can't see this is proof we are not the top intelligence at all. Even our scholars are driven by 'defective' assumptions.

Assumptions about life's intelligence is an assumption based on one-sided review. We do not possess the ability to look at life from behind the eyes of another. When we guess the intelligence of other life and scale it, we are doing so based on our own intelligent standards. Standards unique to our species.

The very fact other life on this planet does not mimic our standards is proof positive we are not the norm. We 'suppose' extra terrestrial intelligent life will have standards common to us but from our limited reference sphere nothing comes close in nature. We are "unnatural", even on this planet full of life. To assume the Universe is full of life like us is ludicrous. It's on the edge of insanity.

Likewise, assuming process are similar or the same is limited. Some may be but some things may occur without an established process. Random cause and effect is but one example.

I'm not saying a grand pattern can't exist. I'm saying chaos exists for us. If chaos can exist, we can't know if a grand pattern exists or not. To assume it does is just as likely as assuming it does not. Neither assumption is valid but both have a chance to be. The point being, we don't "know" because we "can't" know. The Universe is too big. We do not possess the knowledge to make a valid argument either way.

There's also the argument which involves less is more. Its entirely possible our logic and intelligence, reason and curiosity is clouding our minds from seeing what other life forms know. Perhaps that fern understand the patterns of nature far better than us? Maybe the crocodile understands life more completely than us. They might not be clouded by nonsense as we are. Their focus is to a different pattern, yet it is we and our ability to superimpose our definitions of intelligence, that changes our ability to connect with the Universe.

As a human, I see humans as an amazing species. My limited, selfish view of existences is based on human assumptions. Personally, I try to step away from my assumptions. Separate what I think I know from what I really don't know.
I find I know less than I think I know. The deeper I explore this the more I realize my assumptions are unfounded. So, I try to remove those assumptions and the delusions I have built on top of them.

In a multi-verse the 'norm' we know may only be one instance of the possible norms. There might be a Universe where all life is in 'touch' with all life.
That chaos can't exist because everything is connected in understanding.
Plus, there may be billions of degrees of variance in other Universes.

Even in this Universe there may be a world populated by life which has total empathic ability. Our need for society is an example of human empathy. Imagine a world society which crosses species boundaries. Our world society is limited by region and to our own species. Our technology is allowing us to 'close the gap' between us but only within our own species. Perhaps one day, if we survive long enough, we may break the species empathy barrier and become a true world species. Personally, I find that unlikely.

Before fractal geometry was realized by science it existed without reason/purpose.
We saw it but had no idea what it was or how or why it existed.
Understanding it did not justify it because it was justified before we knew what it was.
Other life may be aware of fractal geometry yet has no need to understand it.
It merely exists.

In the sense all nature patterns itself thru fractal geometry doesn't mean it was intended or directed by some force. It may be the natural way reality exists in this Universe. From the depth of stars in the Universe to the pattern of synapse in our brains.

The fractal geometry's significance is the fact it is a pattern whether we understand that pattern or not. Another Universe may not have such a pattern to its reality. The pattern is so ingrained in us, it is difficult to imagine a Universe where it doesn't exist. We are jaded.

Perhaps the defining element common to intelligence in this Universe is founded in that same universal fractal pattern?
If that's the case, all existence/intelligence is of the same pattern throughout our universe. In all organisms, connected, similar and unified.
Maybe the separate patterns of existences is but one single universal pattern which nullifies chaos? In such a Universe, chaos not only can't exist, it never could.

Since we see patterns within patterns, within patterns perhaps this Universe is the one devoid of chaos but we have yet to realize it. That every cause and effect is but a pattern within a pattern.

Humans create patterns. It is a directed event, usually with a purpose. Why we create patterns is because we see patterns all around us, in nature. Just because we intend to create patterns does not mean all patterns are intended by direction.
The honeycomb of a honey bee is a pattern in nature. The queen bee doesn't plan the structure and direct the drones to build it in that pattern, the bees just build it. Its a pattern within the pattern of nature, requiring no intent or direction.
Wind erodes sandstone in different patterns than granite. Yet all the erosion is a pattern within the pattern of nature. There's no intent or direction but there are conditions which cause variance. That's why the rocks we see on Earth look similar to the rocks we see on Mars or Venus, or the Moon. Different conditions creating subtle differences in a single pattern of erosion.
Every honeycomb is similar but unique.
Every rock is similar but unique.
Every human being is similar but unique.
All life is similar but unique.
All stars are similar but unique.
All elementary particles, forces and waves are similar but unique.

Overall, reality is a pattern but not a directed pattern with a specific purpose. It is a pattern of patterns with unique purposes, causes and results culminating into a single unified pattern we call the Universe.

I believe the fact that we presently destroy our environment and ourselves to be a temporary imbalance indicative of the fact that we (or some at some point) are in the midst of the creation of a new norm.

What we lack is unity and universal cooperation in worthwhile endeavors. The way we do things is the problem -invasively, destructively -rather than the fact that we do them. We could do similar things while also acknowledging and maintaining the well-being and balance of our environment -and so our selves and future.

Every act of creation -directed or not causes temporary imbalance in order to create a new balance -with a constant bias toward change -a bit like riding a wave.

We are new to mastery of environment and are making mistakes while learning. Those mistakes will end us if nature does not first -as our understanding and power is limited -so we will create a situation we can not reverse.

That is.... unless there is more to the story.

Either way, being knowledgeable and creative -mastering and improving the environment while also maintaining it... will eventually become the new overall norm.

What good is it if we have the power to deflect planet killing meteors -yet nuke ourselves or destroy plant life? So it is a matter of unity and balance while increasing mastery. That is the new balance which must be created -as evidenced by the present imbalance. Even if we become extinct, things would reach this point again in some way.

In our relatively close environment we see examples of natural failure.
A brown dwarf is essentially a failed star.
Venus is essentially a failed planet for life.
The rings of Saturn consist of moons which were ripped to pieces by Saturn's gravitational effects.
On this planet failure is commonplace, natural and inevitable.
The entire planet will die in the natural death throws of the Sun.

As a species, we are good at putting out fires. Its all 'after the fact' and not predetermined. Often our fixes create unforeseen, new problems we then face fixing. We are not very good at predicting outcomes. We do not act purposely preventive. Our 'sight' barely extends past a single generation or two. A mere 100 years is a mystery to us.

We are much as the Universe is.
Reactive.
Subject to unpredictable cause and effect.
We think we have things figured out but we don't.
That illusion tends to cause us to think we are more than what we are.
Merely another component in the universally encompassing chain of cause and effect of this Universe.
Most people are blind to our unity with each other and the Universe.
A twisted need to redefine that unity instead of accepting it as it is.

The reality which eludes us is of our own making.

Other species can not apparently understand or consider their unity -rather their competitive yet interdependent relationship.
They also apparently cannot upset the balance nature maintains to any great degree.

Our blindness to the need to consider the balance we need to maintain for the sake of all species did not matter until we increased in knowledge and ability to cause extreme imbalance -and we now see that we can do so.

It is a relatively new development.

Before the industrial revolution, increased ability to travel might have led to invasive species -ourselves, plants, animals, microorganisms -but not much more -and other life forms did similar on smaller scales.

For some reason, however, we did gain the ability to mess things up a great deal more -and our understanding stemming from seeing effects now makes us personally and collectively responsible. Other species can not be held responsible-nor can they act responsibly with increased ability.

The next step is learning to be responsible before the fact.

The problem is getting successive generations of uncooperative humans to think before they act -using the present environment as a reference and foundation.

We need not become extinct or otherwise revert to a pre-industrial state in order to eliminate the problem of us -as long as issues are addressed.

Once addressed, however, the same ability which allows us to destroy all life can be turned to responsibility which could potentially save all life from some other planet killing threat.

However, as I see it thus far, it would require a sort of hand up from something far greater than all of us -granting us some sort of permanence and governing cooperation in a way impossible to us due to our present nature.

I don't disagree and I have more to offer on that subject but as far as this thread is concerned I feel I have sidetracked it long enough. Thanx for the fascinating discussion on a wide range of subjects. Its been fun!

This is an edit of the above...

Other species can not apparently understand or consider their unity -rather their competitive yet interdependent relationship.
They also apparently cannot upset the balance nature maintains to any great degree.

Our blindness to the need for the balance necessary to ensure the well-being of all species did not matter until we increased in knowledge and the ability to cause extreme imbalance -but we now see that we can do so.

It is a relatively new development.

Before the industrial revolution, increased ability to travel might have led to invasive species -ourselves, plants, animals, microorganisms -but not much more -and other life forms did similar on smaller scales.

For some reason, however, we did gain the ability to mess things up a great deal more -and our understanding stemming from seeing the effects now makes us personally and collectively responsible. Other species can not be held responsible -nor can they act responsibly with the same increased ability.

The next step is learning to be responsible before the fact.

The problem is getting successive generations of uncooperative and inexperienced humans to think before they act -using the present environment as a reference and foundation.

We need not become extinct or otherwise revert to a pre-industrial state in order to eliminate the problem of "us" -as long as issues are addressed.

Once addressed, the same ability that allows us to destroy all life could be turned to responsibility -which could potentially save all life from some other planet killing threat.

However, as I see it thus far, it would require a sort of hand up from something far greater than all of us -granting us some sort of permanence and governing cooperation in a way impossible to us due to our present nature.

The human race is young -but it does not actually have much chance of maturing, because we each only live up to about 120 years. Everything we are able to accomplish is constantly handed over to new newbs -but what we hand over is increasingly powerful and potentially destructive even as collected knowledge and wisdom is not referenced or simply not always passed on. When it is passed on, it may be ignored, doubted, etc. requiring repetition of effort.

The solution to human problems is to become more than human and universally adhere to universal principles and law. We need a foundation of permanence and unanimity.