Existence vs Awareness

[Nyarlathotep]

Since when? Things have to change in order to evolve don't they? What is evolution, but developmental change? Are you suggesting the Universe undergoes no such processes?

If I beat on a rock with a hammer, it will change, turning into smaller and smaller rocks. Is the rock evolving? If I sit around the house and eat twinkies all day and never exercise, I will change, specifically I will grow too fat to move. Will I have evolved? As I drive my car, parts wear out and are rplaced with other parts, sometimes these parts are different than the originals, has my car evolved?

All evolution is change but not all change is evolution.

 

[Iacchus]

If he did, he was using 'poetic license', or somesuch. He was a very smart man so I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he was using it incorrectly out of ignorance. The universe may change, but it is no more evolution than clouds forming different shapes as wind blows on them is the clouds 'evolving'. Onlyt hings that replicate evolve, that means living beings.

Well, I see that you're opting for the easy way out here. How can you possibly divorce the existence of life from a Universe which, also has a beginning? Are you saying that life is somehow not contingent upon this?

 

[RandFan]

If he did, he was using 'poetic license', or somesuch. He was a very smart man so I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he was using it incorrectly out of ignorance. The universe may change, but it is no more evolution than clouds forming different shapes as wind blows on them is the clouds 'evolving'. Onlyt hings that replicate evolve, that means living beings.

That's fine. I don't care for the gotcha game of semantics. A rose by anyother name is still a rose. I only care what a person means not that he or she used the wrong word. If a person uses the word evolve to mean change then that is fne by me as long as we understand the usage.

That's my 2 cents.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Well, I see that you're opting for the easy way out here. How can you possibly divorce the existence of life from a Universe which, also has a beginning? Are you saying that life is somehow not contingent upon this?

Did I say that? Life evolving wher the conditions permit it <> the universe evolving.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

That's fine. I don't care for the gotcha game of semantics. A rose by anyother name is still a rose. I only care what a person means not that he or she used the wrong word. If a person uses the word evolve to mean change then that is fne by me as long as we understand the usage.

That's my 2 cents.

I'm not being picky over the word because of semantics. Evolution has certain implications that are not present in mere change, specifically evolution encompasses the idea of adaptive change. I get the impression that Iacchus is trying to imply that the universe is 'evolving' to accomodate us, and I just don't find that bloody likely.

 

[Iacchus]

Did I say that? Life evolving wher the conditions permit it <> the universe evolving.

Oh, really? And how did "those conditions" get that way? If, in fact the Universe were in a "static state" before the evolution of life, how could anything have evolved? At what point did "it" not become static?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Oh, really? And how did "those conditions" get that way? If, in fact the Universe were in a "static state" before the evolution of life, how could anything have possibly evolved? At what point did "it" not become static?

Who said it was in a static state?

 

[Trifikas]

Well, I see that you're opting for the easy way out here. How can you possibly divorce the existence of life from a Universe which, also has a beginning? Are you saying that life is somehow not contingent upon this?

Just because it's the easy way, doesn't make it not correct. But what the heck, what's YOUR definition of evolution? you could, I suppose, consider it broad enough to encompass any kind of change in any system, but for the most part it generaly refers to biological change.

I think part of the definition involves replicating entities (someone correct me if that's not the case), wich tends to leave the universe out of it. None of our observations of it would suggest it's replicated.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Evolution means change over time. This definition applies to everything, humans age and mature just as suns age and mature.

The Theory of Evolution pertains only to living organisms.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not being picky over the word because of semantics. Evolution has certain implications that are not present in mere change, specifically evolution encompasses the idea of adaptive change. I get the impression that Iacchus is trying to imply that the universe is 'evolving' to accomodate us, and I just don't find that bloody likely.

Understood. I just want to understand myself.

 

[Taffer]

{snip}How many billions of years did it take before life began to evolve?

0. Once life arose, it began to evolve. Before there was life, there was no (biological) evolution. There was only change (or 'evolution' in a broad sense meaning 'change over time').

 

[Iacchus]

Do star systems evolve? Or, do they just pop into existence whenever they feel like it? Just think where life would be if that didn't happen. Wouldn't it suffice to say that this whole thing about existence (in every single last aspect) is conditional?

 

[Iacchus]

If he did, he was using 'poetic license', or somesuch. He was a very smart man so I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he was using it incorrectly out of ignorance. The universe may change, but it is no more evolution than clouds forming different shapes as wind blows on them is the clouds 'evolving'. Onlyt hings that replicate evolve, that means living beings.

And by that you're saying clouds have always existed? You seem to be saying that there are no specific characteristics and/or requirements in how they should form. How did they get here if the conditions weren't right and they didn't form from something else?

 

[Lothian]

Isn't it amazing that anything exists at all, let alone that it's capable of being aware of itself? The probabilities must have been astounding that anything should just up and appear out of nowhere (in other words from absolute nothingness), and then, for the whole thing to take form and ultimately become aware of itself?

Yes it is amazing. The odds must be finite.

Dude, that's too much to fathom!

Then don't bother.

 

[Iacchus]

I'm not being picky over the word because of semantics. Evolution has certain implications that are not present in mere change, specifically evolution encompasses the idea of adaptive change.

Would you go so far as to suggest that when a star system forms, it is just "following the script?" Or, what exactly do you mean by it not being an "adaptive change?" By the way, life is the only thing that appears to be an anomaly, in a Universe which otherwise conducts itself in an orderly and predictable fashion. Indeed, look at how widespread and evenly distributed the star systems are, and how much they entail the same process of formation and, are comprised of the same thing. Almost as if it was instinctively understood how to do this, right after the Big Bang occurred. Hmm ...

I get the impression that Iacchus is trying to imply that the universe is 'evolving' to accomodate us, and I just don't find that bloody likely.

Actually, I wasn't thinking that but, now that you mention it ...

 

[Iacchus]

Yes it is amazing. The odds must be finite.

Of course if we could surmount the possibility that it all came from nothing, that would mean just about anything is possible, don't you think?

Then don't bother.

Well, I suppose I could say Goddidit.

 

[Lothian]

Of course if we could surmount the possibility that it all came from nothing, that would mean just about anything is possible, don't you think?

No

Well, I suppose I could say Goddidit.

You could. You could say god makes the sun come up every morning. You could say god makes the rain fall. You can say what you want.

 

[Iacchus]

Evolution means change over time. This definition applies to everything, humans age and mature just as suns age and mature.

The Theory of Evolution pertains only to living organisms.

So, evolution means change, and then there's a theory about it? By the way, I never once mentioned the theory of evolution.

 

[Iacchus]

No
You could. You could say god makes the sun come up every morning. You could say god makes the rain fall. You can say what you want.

Or, I could just say God is responsible for everything, even these wonderful theories that we come up with.

 

[Taffer]

Do star systems evolve? Or, do they just pop into existence whenever they feel like it? Just think where life would be if that didn't happen. Wouldn't it suffice to say that this whole thing about existence (in every single last aspect) is conditional?

You seem to be using "evolve" in two different sense. First, there is "evolve" as used in the theory of evolution. Secondly, there is "evolve" as used to mean "change over time". However, neither uses of the word "evolve" can be used to decribe the creation of something. Things evolve after they exist. Evolution does not deal with the creation of things. You should try to understand this, Iacchus.

Also, please note that yes, star systems do evolve (that is, they change over time). However, only living things 'evolve' (that is, change by evolutionary processes as described by the theory of evolution).