I always find this debate fascinating. There are so many oddball assumptions being made:
does complexity denote a divinity ?
How are we perceiving and measuring complexity, if not within our own references
?
When we assign the fact that the first cells - proteins - molecules etc. were created by a god, in what sense is it more or less credible than just saying nature did it alone, but has mysterious godlike properties ? If you look at it as a miracle, then a miracle called “god and having a mind like god”, or a miracle “created by aliens from another star system” or “nature all by itself” are all fundamentally equivalent! I mean it seems always an aesthetic choice, if not simply a linguistic choice. Or was biology designed just complex enough for us to notice how incredible it is so as to make us believe in some godlike maker ? But then even to appreciate this complexity we first had to become makers of complex machinery ourselves first, and then compare it to how we would imagine trying to design biology.
why is it assumed that biology should or would be simple ? If we lived in a universe where the building blocks of biology could evolve at high speed in a laboratory within 24 hours and we could follow all the steps, would that make a natural explanation of biology less miraculous ? And what if biology - man were made up of very simple box like components but then had the properties we had, would that make a natural explanation credible ? wouldn’t it still be a miracle no matter how we operated ?
All of the ideas in that webiste would point, more than anything else, to a very high technology civilization that designed us. I mean the way the molecules are described is assuming a viewpoint of a man like alien that wanted to design a very complex machine using a very advanced technology. And if the alien is god or nature what would really change ? It is the same thing, the whole debate is a circus.
Another interesting assumption is that biology must be simpler than our minds - brains. If we cannot easily decode biology’s workings, it must have been done by a much greater mind than ours. But how do we know that our way of decoding the world is the most intelligent or efficient ? How can we compare what proteins can do with what we can understand of them ? Where is is written that our minds should be able to easily understand and decode nature ? And where is it stated that nature must not be extremely complex ?
Even more, why should we even be able to understand nature at all ? Where is it written that we should be able to understand nature and there should be no mysteries for our mind in nature ? Nature’s WAYS ARE MYSTERIOUS, we cannot understand them all. Where did I here something like this before ?
There is an interesting intersection between creationism, biology and technological singularity. Biology can in fact be seen as a self evolving technology. It is matter itself that has gone into a recursive feedback loop where it is capable of manipulating itself through reproduction and modification.
Now if we look at intentional manipulation of matter by humans, we see that in less than 100 years we went from horses to space travel and supercomputers. So there is a property of matter that allows it to be manipulated in many ways and into very complex configurations. Now if we imagine our own technological evolution through intentional intelligent design and extrapolate it into millions of years, we can imagine such results that greatly exceed anything compared to space ships or supercomputers. So if we look at the complexity of biology it could very well resemble what could be expected by millions of years of technological evolution.
But in the case of biology it evolved by itself, but it used up an entire planet with trillions of separate evolutionary paths intersecting and for 3 billion years. So then what makes intentional design by humans so different from some recursive feedback loop that matter enters alone ? In what sense is our intentional manipulation of matter different from blind chance ? who is seeing what and why is chance blind ? blind compared to us ? do we see and matter not ? or maybe matter sees things we cannot.
I think the really interesting thing is that matter can be manipulated into very intricate structures. So we followed a given path and created supercomputers, organic chemistry created complex biological machines. It is as if carbon chemistry is the programming language of a given type of matter and follows a given path. But then the fact that matter can be manipulatd so much means we have no idea how much more it can be modified, how many other incredible structures are possible. We only know some very few structures that are possible and even our limited imagination can already see technological singularities where minds can directly design and modify themselves.
It is as if we had a linear scale from 0 to 1,000,000 where supercomputers are in a given position of say 20 and humans are at 300. Then what lies past 300 all the way up to a million ? What lies at 150 ?
As far as the creationist website, the guy could be right. But there is no implication of what the god is. In the end he says read the bible, but this in no can be deduced from proteins or DNA. The most he can say is that some other intentional designer created us, but he can’t say anything of what this creator is. In fact it is much more probable that it is an alien from outer space.
It is in fact amazing that those who find natural evolution too simple or not sufficient to create biology, automatically say that the bible is the real answer. Why on earth is there only one possibility? I mean even if evolution is completely wrong, then according to the scientific method, you try to find alternative explanations. So there can be many explanations or even no explanation at all. There is just no one to one correspondence between saying DNA is too complicated the bible is right then. Well then why not the Koran ? Why not a parallel universe ? Why not we humans are too stupid to figure it out ? Why not “************” and put in there any of hundreds of other possibilities.
I appreciate the way creationists marvel at the complexity of biology but they have put the answers before the research. It is like I were to say if computers exist then only aliens exist because they told us how to make them. They got the scientific method upside down, they start off saying the bible is right and then go on to demonstrate how it is right by showing how complex biology is.
But isn’t “no explanation” the same as a creationist explanation ? Or even better aren’t both theories, natural evolution and creationism the same ? If you say the ultimate explanation for natural evolution is that at a given point in time and in a given place in space a large number of atoms just self arranged themselves to create the first cell in just one shot, a single quirk event by pure chance, or by pure blind forces, well isn’t this the same as saying it was assigned miraculously by an intelligent being ? At the heart of it, both theories are actually one and the same they are ony choosing different spots to where to assign the miracles.
Then why is a sequence of cause and effects less miraculous than a one shot arrangement of molecules ? Just because you can follow a distinct series of steps that end up to the first living cell, does that make it less incredible ? And each step no matter how small, isn’t each step just a small quirk miracle ?
Is it possible to say we have no explanation for a given phenomena in science ? What is an explanation ? Is it just something that explains complex items as being produced by simpler, everyday items, so that we can always assume that no mysterious and completely uncontrollable forces or events occur ? Isn’t science itself always operating on the principle that no supernatural or metaphysical or totally unexplainable event can occur ? Is an explanation just something we choose and like because it is something familiar, not threatening ?
Science is based on regularity, predictability, repeatability. It is based on the fact that you can find general laws that govern events. That certain events in certain conditions happen over and over again. This is the basis of cause and effect. Now history, for example cannot be scientific in this sense. You couldn’t predict the Vietnam war in 1969 from how the world was in the year 1500. Maybe a future supercomputer can do it having all the equations and exact determinism, but today no one could think it even makes sense. History is just a random sequence of quirk events that occur without any hard scientific reason.
So then the way biology came about could very well be similar to history; it cannot be reduced to general laws, it was just a sequence of chance events that brought about the first cell. I mean even the big bang was a one time event, it is outside of the range of science, it occured for no further reason. So there is no reason why the first living cell couldn’t have just popped out of nowhere for no reason just like the big bang. The molecules just got together and just created this odd item.
The point is that science cannot say that totally unexplainable phenomena cannot occur. There are things that can occur without it being possible to discover general laws or regularities at its basis. Saying that a complex item can just pop out from nowhere doesn’t mean it breaks the laws of science, it just breaks our desire that everything be explainable and reduced to regularities. After all even quantum mechanics is a pobabilistic - statistical theory, obviously having alot of regularity, but regularity is no way necessary in everything that occurred and occurs in the universe. No explanation doesn’t mean an extra explanation like god or supernatural events. It just means there is no explanation, science cannot discover it because it cannot be reproduced, it is outside of the range of science.
This is why creationists have so much fun with biology. The exact sequence of trillions of chance events that brought about the first living cell is outside of the range of science just like determining the Vietnam war from the world in the year 1500 is outside of the range of science.
I don’t think it is “unrecognized”. Those educated on biology I’m sure would recognize the amazing engineering of biological beings. Our immune system for example is awesome!
The “engineer” of this technology being The Universe and 15 billion years of tinkering.
Wow! That is quite an interesting way to see it. Evolution is like history in that it is a series of single point events that constantly change the path of what an organism is becoming. And then the organisms never really become a final product but constantly change into something else indefinitely.
It is like having this large array of organic chemistry machines that are interacting and influencing each other for millions of years, as if it was a language being spoken between these machines. The machines being viruses, fishes, cats, dogs etc.
If you could imagine how many different possible machines - structures can arise it is truly mind boggling. I mean between a fish and a dog how many intermediate machines can possibly exist ? And even more so how many complex internal structures can these machines possess ? multiple brains ? brains and hearts put into one organ ? I mean really the possibilities are incredible!
"Discussing evolution we are a logical structure looking at another logical structure. We are a superset of chemical reactions looking at a subset of itself. So how can we have an “objective” view of what we look at or evaluate ? We see logic, but we are made up of the logic we are looking at. We are not at some abstract plane looking at the universe and judging what is reasonable or a miracle or just everday items. We are not a “structureless” structure capable of an independent view of the cell, DNA or the sequence that brings to evolution, because we are exactly all those things.
So we are looking at ourselves in the mirror and saying , wow what a miracle or well we are inevitable or wow a god made us etc. We don’t know what to think of evolution or the cell or all the chemical reactions happening in parallel that make up ourselves.
So what you are saying is that we always see things through a distorting filter even though we think we see things clearly. We see the cell, DNA and the chemical reactions and see how perfectly logical all the mechanisms seem, how they fit in perfectly, but we are actually looking at ourselves because we are a superset of all those mechanisms. So we are a mechanism looking at a different version of itself, or at a different encoding of itself, but this is a gross distortion, we can’t really evaluate how logical it is or how perferct it is or how exceptional it is compared to just a set of rocks on mars. We are kind of like judging ourselves with our own scale, so what are we judging ? Interesting view of the whole debate on evolution…
We are matter-energy looking at itself and judging itself with its own scales and devices which means we are a positive feedback loop that can’t really see itself clearly from the outside. What this outside really is no one can know without completely changing the neural circuits of our mind-brain. Maybe many different kinds of mind-brains can finally give us a peek of what we are. I am afraid we will need trillions of mind-brains each completely different from each other, each engineered differently to understand.
If a computer program had to decode itself and understand itself, it would discover that its microcode assembler had jump instructions and add and move to memory instructions and all other kinds of instructions that it would recognize and find strikingly similar and logical to its own high level language instructions. So it would be surprised and say how incredibly logical that assembler code is, what a miracle that is!
But it couldn’t really be any other way since the high level instructions are composed of the low level ones. So it is with ourselves when we decode the cell biology, the chemical reactions and DNA. We are actually made up of that logic, it is natural that our biology follows that very logic, it couldn’t be any other way. And yet we think it is a miracle, something incredible when in reality it couldn’t be any other way, we are simply looking at ourselves and the very logic we are made up of!
So when they say how could pure chance create a living cell, the exceptionality of the cell is only according to our perception and because we recognize so much logic and so many intricate mechanisms. But for nature intricate mechanisms, logic and pure random noise and rocks from mars are all equivalent. They are all the same and all equally incredible or meaningless. We simply have a very biased view of ourselves and our biology."
If a billion years of the universe tinkering with itself created humans through blind chance, then imagine what the next billion years of intentional design tinkering by humans could bring. This intentional manipulation by humans could lead to many different results, past technological singularities, and could follow many different paths and reach different end points in parallel and interact with each other just like natural evolution. The question arises why is intentional manipulation different from blind chance ? After all intentional minds arised out of evolution, intentionality - consciousness are a result of blind evolution.
So then even though we may think that intentional manipulation of matter can speed up evolution to unknown heights, it is not really to be taken for granted. Blind evolution - manipulation of matter by itself can follow many different paths that intentional manipulation would never imagine or dream of. Just like blind evolution created consciousness, it can very well follow many other paths that could bring to results that far exceed any results intentional design can bring. It could very well be that even the most complex results of intentional design by humans (or human/machine hybrids), the most radical modification of our minds - neural circuits- emotions etc. is only one possible result, whereas blind evolution through completely different and unknown paths can bring results that are infinitely more radical than any mind logic can imagine to create. Technological singularity and modified minds could be a minor result of millions of other much more radical results brought upon through other paths of self manipulation of matter.
The law of conservation of knowledge states that knowledge cannot increase or decrease, it can only be transformed from one configuration to another. Every time you gain knowledge in some area, you also loose an equal amount of knowledge in some other area. So, for example, you know how to design a CPU using modern computers but you no longer know how to do it manually. Or you learn that Santa Clause doesn’t exist but you loose the way you felt and knew the world previously, etc.
So the configuration of knowledge that we tend towards is guided by a function that minimizes pain or achieves maximum pleasure or satisfaction. So once this optimal configuration of knowledge is achieved, there is no longer any change since it is stable and has achieved all that it wanted. This does not mean that other configurations of knowledge aren’t possible, that an apparent further increase in knowledge couldn’t be achieved, but simply that it is no longer useful.
So the modified minds would reach this stable state and wouldn’t evolve anymore. They would reach a stable pleasure equilibrium or something like that. So the idea that evolution tends towards increasing complexity and increasingly complex material configurations is not always true. And in fact a modified mind that simply learns how to manipulate its emotional - pleasure centers through a very direct and simple neural circuit would have achieved a kind of “paradise” but at the same time be much simpler than even a one cell organism. Complexity is in no way related to a path of achievment. Like something said previously, if we were made up of very simple box like items, but the result was a thinking - feeling person, would that change how we view our mechanics ? if a simple structure created a similar effect to a thinking - feeling human, would we still think it was a miracle ?
Of course through technological singularities, and self designed modified minds, we can imagine a huge array of new emotions - sensations and even pleasure and pain could be just two of millions of other measuring systems; so in such complex minds the evolution of these minds could go on for millions of years and at very high speed. But systems that measure things with a host of completely unknown sensations that are not pleasure and pain are way too far away for us to understand. In this case the knowledge configuration, or better, information configuration and the internal mechanisms of these minds could have an infinite degree of complexity.
This is even more true of the blind chance - natural evolution of matter that manipulates itself. In this case, as said, the paths that it could follow and structures it could achieve can’t even be imagined by a logical mind. Consciousness - emotions - thinking minds is just one of millions of other incredible material items that could evolve. What this new evolved matter experiences cannot at all be known by us.
the miricale of life??? Reproduction takes many precise variables to react individually. First DNA is unravaled and split apart. Then protiens are matched up to each gene half. Then a line of protiens is pulled off, and folded into a part. Then placed into place.
This takes several precise subcellular biological machines reacting to biochemical cues, but never working out of order. There are two main biochemical mediums for these cues to work in. One in the nucleus, and one in the rest of the cell.
Before life. amino acids were logically naturally available. So lets say that a chemical pool some how became layered according to weight. These chemicals also didn’t use up their chemical action and become one chemical much.
The all of the amino acids some how formed one or two spacific protiens. These protiens then where swirled by a wave and at the right time bonded to make a cell wall. This allowed selective ozmosis according to the size of chemical molecules. Then a change in weather allowed the expansion of the cell wall at a different rate then the expansion of the surrounding chemicals. Thus allowing the ozmosis of a different chemical to allow a chemcal action inside the cell, and produce more amino acids.
Therefore it is clear the the Godly force that created life is general external forces that somehow created percise internal forces. Once the chemical seperation of a cell wall was in place. It just took the freak occurance of all the parts of the most simple cell to just fall in place and get struck by lightning to freaze them in place and produce an internal energy. The first life took advantage of the chemical mush that used up it’s chemical action, and changed it into the very first virus.
…
But anayways. The leap from general external forces to percise internal forces is a miricle. Not to mention the many percise internal forces of a cell to work uniformly. Now I know quite well kno how biochemical and attract and repell could manage life. I believe that the soul and other parrellel aspects are the proof of God.
Define god. Do you mean an alien from outer space ? from a parallel universe ? Or is matter itself a godly substance ? Are electrons, protons and photons all exactly equal to god, or a part of god or simply god’s mind ?
I think that a possible way to view the whole deal of how the first cell magically came about is to start out from the electron, proton and photon. It must be that within the physical laws guiding these particles there is the potential of them combining into very intricate and yet functional ways. I mean they combine to give a stable system called an atom, the atoms can combine under given conditions to create stable molecules, and at a certain point a number of stable molecules can combine to create a living cell. So why not just view the cell as a stable quantum mechanical system just like an atom ? The cell can simply be viewed as a gigantic special atom, and we humans as a further gigantic stable atom, or overgrown atom, a quantum mechanical structure having many levels that is stable just as much as a simple electron is.
As far as :
“This is even more true of the blind chance - natural evolution of matter that manipulates itself. In this case, as said, the paths that it could follow and structures it could achieve can’t even be imagined by a logical mind. Consciousness - emotions - thinking minds is just one of millions of other incredible material items that could evolve. What this new evolved matter experiences cannot at all be known by us.”
That means that there could be structures that are as far way from us and our understanding as much as a rock is from us. Can a rock understand our minds - emotions ? Can it have any idea that we exist and that this possibility can be ? Well, in the same way these other material items can self manipulate and evolve into things to us completely not understandable. We are to them like the rock is to us, we are like a rock and these other evolved matter having other kinds of experiences are like humans. That is the distance, if not even trillions of times more.
Since space and time are a side effect of matter,… God exsists outside of space and time and matter. Therefore all things that are such, are but thoughts to God.
How do you define God but by God’s side effects? The Holy Spirit is a residual healing effect. For being in this presance will fill your soul with peace and allow you to be healed from spiritual pain. It brings back the innocents and purity of a new soul.
Jesus said that faith without works is ignorance, and the Holy Spirit is the biggest thing Jesus brought to religion. I’d say it’s the defining thing. And it’s just as significant today as it was 2000 years ago. If you don’t know this aspect of God, you don’t know God.
God the father is a father. And as a father he demands you give him love and respect and trust. All of those things are nessecary for love. God the father sent phrophets to guide his children with rules, toward a better life. If you want to debate the psychology behind God’s will for us,… well you should make that a different post.
You are missing the steps to divide the intricacy of each part of a cell. IE the biochemical soup that’s in the nucleus is different the the biochemical soup that’s in the rest of the cell. What steps could their possiably be to create both while still haveing the intelligence to be considered a cell.
What is the biological explination of love? For love is an external energy felt from with in. Unlike all other feelings, feeling love is involintary. In fact, if love were just biochemical energy, you could blind fold someone and trick them into thinking they have felt love from an inanimate object.
No, it’s quite obvious that love is a spiritual feeling. So let me define the spirit. This is true for ghosts and humans… The soul is an energy that has side effects in matter, but still independent of matters energy. The soul’s energy effects different chemical energy sections of the brain differently. Hence depression is the spiritual lack of hope. Jesus defined this as love and joy as the biggest two spiritual feelings. The lack of hope is the spiritual lack of the energy to give us the side effect of seretonine release. Hence every section of the brain stores the memories associated with that feeling.
Animals are biochemical machines. They have no hope or love. They have no artistic side of life. They have no desires to be anything else but an animal.
I would like to talk about space now. We know that space is large, within space we could fill it up with 10^120 particles, considering it to be 15 billion light years long in each direction. Now the concept of exploration of this space means that we know very little of what is outside of our small corner. We have only been to the moon and just a few times.
Now consider instead the space of combinations, or the space of configurations. To explore all the combinations of 120 numbers (or to count up to a number having 120 digits) you would have to write a number for each particle in the universe. Now consider instead how many neurons or processors a modified mind has. Many billions, maybe trillions. Now to explore this space of combinations or configurations we would have to visit a number of different combinations greatly in excess of say 10^1000000. Our physical space compared to this is really just a speck. Now how many lives, experiences, emotions are possible within these modified minds ? We don’t know and even if we did try to explore some of them we would always be leaving out a huge number of combinations. So it would seem that the real exploration of science or humans or intelligent beings hasn’t even begun yet. And that the real exploration is within this greatly larger space of combinations.
Now imagine how many possible combinations matter can be configured in. And how many of them could be a self modified - self evolved piece of self manipulating matter. The conbinations become even more astronomical. So the message is really we know practically nothing of the possibilities. Of course it could be that there is only one configuration and that is our mind and that we know everything that there is to know. But even in this case, we don’t know the future of how our own technology can evolve. And if you look at the distance between today and just 100 years ago, that would also point to the idea that there are a great many other possibilities that we can barely imagine in the future.
Or it could be the other way around. That the future has very little in store for us, that we have reached the maximum in all or better yet that our maximum is behind us, was maybe in 1969 (the summer of love?).
It could be that there really is no further higher evolution, that we actually lost more than gained with the PC and internet, that we were much more advanced during the hippies era. So all these science fiction scenarios you talk about could be just that, pure fantasy - science fiction. We have already reached all that is physically possible.
It’s an interesting problem. How do things work ? What are we used to seeing ? I mean an internal combustion engine or a lightbulb is considered something that has no mystery or magic to it. They are both a combination of material elements that put in a certain configuration and combination perform a certain function. There is no debate about these. So why should there be any debate about a material item that is a living cell ? Because we don’t know how to construct one ? Because we can’t follow all of the steps and mechanisms that underly the item ? Because we are not used to seeing the mechanisms in our day to day life ? if we lived in a universe where things constantly popped up out of nowhere, the stability and smooth flow of our universe would seem like magic or a miracle.
If a material item is made up of just a tungsten wire or a few hundred pieces like an engine or a few billion like a living cell, then what makes them really different ? The complexity of the items or do they appear magical because of an “artistic” or “aesthetic” view of them ? Does an item with 200 pieces seem like an everyday item and one with a few billion seem divine, magical, mystical ? A computer chip can now have a billion pieces (transistors) but no one debates them as magical.
Again, if we were made up of simple box like items that created all our functions, or even just 3 boxes, or a living cell that was just composed of 3 simple monolithic boxes but had all of the propertie of a cell, how would we view biology ? Our view is a function of the underlying mechanisms of the universe, but the result of these mechanisms is the effect we see. And we decide that some effects are a miracle and others are not. But the underlying mechanisms are really arbitrary, they have nothing deeper that the fact that our universe is simply painted this way. The laws of physics could be any other and the mechanisms and resulting effects could be any other possible design or painting or arbitrary mechanism. If we had a universe where the contact of two rocks created pure consciousness, well that would be a very simple non magical mechanism that created a huge effect. So the underlying mechanism is irrelevant, only the effect counts and our judgment of the effect is arbitrary because we measure, judge and perceive these effects according to an arbirtary invented scale. A rock is a real miracle and Mars was designed by an intelligent design, humans are no miracle.
Just as you have spatial reductionism you have temporal reductionism; a cell is made up of molecules which are made up of atoms etc. and so the temporal reductionism is the number of cause and effect steps necessary to perform a function or a global effect. A universe can be characterized by having a certain amount of temporal reductionism that creates certain effects; but the complexity does have an upper limit. There are only so many micro cause and effect steps that can create a global effect, maybe trillions but it is limited.
So you can have a universe that is designed or “painted” with physical laws that imply a huge number of cause and effect steps that produce a simple effect and a few cause and effect steps that create a hugely complex effect like consciousness (the example of 2 rocks that create a mind). In this sense it is purely arbitrary, how the laws produce something like life and how complex or simple they are can be purely assigned, just like a painting. But then again complex and simple is just our perception, our feeling of what they seem.
Of course there is a great deal of arbitrary judgments on biology, life, the mind etc. But you can’t blame creationists for saying that biology sticks out greatly compared to the rest of the natural world. Planets have random stones, weather systems have random clouds, stars have random plasmas, but only biology has this intricate organization compared to the rest of the universe. It really stands out like the oddball of nature.
" difference between objects designed by human intelligence and biological objects is that man made items have a discontinuous complexity. A chip has a certain complexity but all the transistors lie on one side of the surface, the complexity does not occupy all 3 dimensions of space and all the points of space. A living cell has all 3 dimensions of space it occupies filled with the same degree of complexity, every nanometer of space in all 3 directions is occupied by molecules and chemical reactions and structures. There is nothing man made that is similar.
Everything we construct has some peaks of complexity at certain points in space but nothing we make is equally complex in all 3 dimensions for the entire volume occupied by the item. Biological material is complex for the entire volume and the complexity starts from the atom-molecule level up. So if an intelligence designed the living cell, it operates very differently from ours or it may just be equally as different as pure random chance. Our “intelligent design” is no closer or similar to an alien intelligence or to a random chance of events either way."
The idea of increasing the abstraction level of the discussion of evolution by introducing the more general implications of a universe and the laws of physics that govern it is a good one. The fact that we live in one particular universe where the laws operate in a certain way and can create living, thinking items that can then interrogate themselves of their very laws is interesting. But when you start thinking of alternate universes with other physical laws, well then the sky is the limit. Not only can there be any association between mechanisms and effects, but the experience these evolving items can have in that universe can be anything way past what we can imagine.
In fact we can imagine and measure even the most extreme possibilities only with our own universe as a reference system, including all and any kind of logic and the principles of existence. No matter how wild we try to imagine another universe, it must be imagined with some minimum reference to our own, if not at least some logic, some measurement, some existence etc. To really imagine a possible alternative to this universe we would have to be outside of it, we would have to be in a universe that has for example no math or logic or measurements, or no existence and non-existence. This is too far from us, and in fact is the farthest possible thing for us, this is our limit.
Another universe having other laws of physics may exist, or maybe does exist (because it doesn’t follow the principles of non-contradiction) but we can’t know anything of it, at least not with the instruments we have now. Maybe in the future with supersimulators, supercomputers, technological singularities, who knows.
Now all you philosophy students, study all these threads during the Cristmas holidays.
