Our dead ancestry speaks to us through our muscle memory, to give us insight as to “what killed them” so we do not fall into the same trap.
Our chromosomes are the language between all of life’s past and our future. On some quantum level, the primordial will of the universe is connected to protein replication through a field of probability. Since life is necessary due to the Anthropic Principle, then the continued existence of life is also required.
Humanity’s acquiring of intelligence collapsed nature’s wave-function for evolution, as our will to dominate over other life forms has disrupted nature’s harmonious cycle of death and rebirth.
Do you not see how complex it all is? And you believe yourself to be “open-minded”? The complexity alone requires the existence of primordial will. To satisfy my nihilistic personality, I will put at as this: “Life exists simply because the alternative was non-existence.”
interesting. what do you mean here by muscle memory? i do not have any knowledge or awareness of memories living in my muscles, nor do i have any sense of memories of my muscles, or their movements, from before i was born…
what is the will of the universe?
i will assume that you are right that quantum-level fluctuations and energies are connected to DNA replication (of course they are, DNA replication IS a quantum-process fundamentally, as is all matter formation and motion), but i dont see how the “universe” as some sort of totality or “essence of will” is somehow manifesting itself through these basic operations of natural and quantum-level forces…
life is not made or seen as “necessary” by the Anthropic Principle, merely that it EXISTS, and that we should take into account the POSSIBILITY OF LIFE, and of intelligent life, whenever contemplating other planets/galaxies/universes/possible worlds, because we know that life CAN happen, because WE are alive. it doesnt really say that, under any certain circumstances, life is INEVITABLE.
all life has the will to dominate its environment, no matter how large or small that environment is-- it MUST have this will, the will to hunt, eat, hide, interact, procreate, all of these changes and “dominations” over others, living or nonliving… of course, human life takes this to a much HIGHER level, but fundamentally, its no different-- we are just not as limited by environmental constraints and selection-processes as are other animals.
what do you mean about a wave-function for evolution? humanity is still part of the cycle of life and death, death and rebirth, rebirth and life… we are not exempt from this. we just have altered the cycle itself, forced it to adapt drastically to our presence… but we could never actually STOP the cycle, just as we can never place ourselves OUTSIDE of its…
viewing the “cycle of life” as “harmonious” when humans are not in it, and lacking this harmony when we are, is a false way of viewing the world. the “harmony” is an illusion, just another way of saying “better balanced”, which is only a subjective interpretation anyways. everything will always be in a “balance” in that the pendulum swings one way, then the other, then back again… its always moving, and there are no extremes, so naturally it will always ocillate. saying that its not “harmonious” because of our presence is just another way of admitting that we have forced the pendulum to (temporarily) swing around us, to bend its motion to our presence more than the presence of other life. this, however, does not mean there is no “harmony” or balance, and regardless, it will not (indeed, CANNOT) last in this situation forever.
i do indeed see how complex it is. sometimes, i weep at the beauty, the depth, the magnitude… life is so vast, the universe so immense and large and deep and refined and interconnected, even just a brief glimpse into this inner nature can be blinding. however, i dont see what you mean by a “primordial will”; do you just mean that the present and future are functions of the past, and that the past reoccurs and “comes again” in the sense of causality and “fate” or “karma”? or do you mean that there is some literal thinking, conscious being within the universe which “wills”? is this a religious or god-being? personally, the overall picture of the universe makes much more sense, and is indeed FAR more beautiful, when we understand it in a purely materialistic, physical, natural, impersonal, spontaneous, dymanic, multiplied way, WITHOUT a need for some overall “will” or “god” or “plan” behind it all, guiding it from out of sight… positing such beings, or “higher purposes”, is to me a gross blasphemy against the mighty RESILIENCE and SELF-EVIDENCE, the spontaneously-organizing, the awesome natural-power of the universe itself.
i see no need for metaphysics whatsoever.
“Life exists simply because the alternative was non-existence.” i wouldnt call this nihilistic per se, but i get your meaning, i think… however, this statement cannot be true, because its presupposes that life had a choice to either exist or not exist, before it existed… clearly, that is not possible.
life IS, because it is LIFE. it just is, as a naturally-occuring function and organization of the matter-energy of parts of the universe, given certain conditions are met. nothing “chosen” or “purposeful” needed for this to happen. there is far more beauty and reverence, divinity, in seeing the NATURAL and UN-CHOSEN, UN-PLANNED and UN-PURPOSEFUL nature of life in the universe… the fact that it arises spontaneously, by natural process, is remarkable. why cheapen it with talk of higher “wills” and meanings or purposes, plans and creations by god-beings, when its already so damn beautiful, so divine, in its own right…?
This iinsinuates that the reason something happening is that it was possible that it happened.
I am pretty sure that hippogriffs don’t exist. Even though it is possible that they do exist, they don’t. Why could life not have been like a hippogriff: a non-actualised possibility?
Possible existence is a pre-requisite for existence, but it doesn’t cause existence. Otherwise we’d have all manner of crazy things flying around.
There is more than one possible explanition of the world’s complexity. Your argument (complexity) underdetermines your conclusion (primordial will).
I don’t mind all this continental sounding stuff. But what pisses me off sometimes is that people often hide shit arguments by using loads of technical terms that are supposed to bamboozle the reader. This is not philosophy by anyones standards - its just sloppyness.
ah, but thats where youre wrong; a GREAT DEAL of what is called philosophy is indeed not much more than the “bamboozling with words”, semantic trickery. it IS philosophy, by philosophy’s own standards, much of the time… at least if you take Academia or historical philosopher’s word for it.
personally, i agree with what youre saying, that it SHOULD NOT be considered “philosophy”-- yet, unfortunately, often it is.
When dealing with the concept of “The Begining of the Universe”, there are only few ways of looking at the first “step” from “nothingness” (or almost nothingness) and “somethingness”. Since time, gravity, etc did not exist before this “first step”, then it is pointless to ask how long it took for the process to get started. The process was either:
i) Instantaneous
ii) The destruction of a previous universe immediately followed by the creation of our universe.
iii) There is an ongoing, infinite cycle in which at the end of each universe, all matter/energy in that universe transcends to a different dimension where a similar (yet slightly altered) variant of the previous universe is put forth into motion.
Indeed there are many ways of possibly explaining the world’s complexity, but:
No matter which way you look at it, there is a fundamental driving force causing all activity in existence. Some inherent will had to give existence a little “push” to get it moving. I call it “primordial will”. I am not necessarily declaring it a concept of a “god”. I would think of it as a necessary property for all matter and energy. I think we can agree upon two simple facts. First, something exists (If you can’t agree on that then certainly there is more problems you should be concerned about). Second, there is movement/variance in the something that exists. From this we can conclude that there was (and is) a sort of “fuel” behind the original movement of the “something”.
Schopenhauer is much better at explaining the abstract concept of “will”, but apply it to all matter/energy/space and virtual/matter/energy space in the universe.
Not only did this primordial will set forth the necessary characteristics of matter and energy (and the physical laws that they abide by), but it also constructed perfect circumstances for life on Earth.
Well I’ll admit that I was a bit tired (and psychotic from amphetamine and sleep deprivation) when writing most of my recent posts, but it was necessary for me to go into that “closet of thought” in order to have the concept well established in my non-psychotic persona. I wasn’t trying to bamboozle anyone with “big words”, I chose what seemed the most appropriate to express my ideas.
I will go in depth later in explaining the technical and mathematical aspects of what I stated when I have time to.