I tried posting this in /x/ but it wasn't about summoning a succubus waifu so it got pruned the moment it gained any...

what a moron

please, go back to /x/. you belong there

>When you get called a student

>when you get called out for believing a youtube video was actual science, then refuse to post said video because realise it makes you look like an actual moron

we Veeky Forums, not /x/. seriously, you need to go back

No you're just really autistic and castrated of any ability to comment on this subject because pemdas doesn't apply to it.

I still have no idea what YouTube video you are talking about, but it really doesn't make you look too smart to be making assumptions like that unless this is some sort of Veeky Forums and /lgbt/ meme or something.

Veeky Forums - an absolutely corrosive environment for intellectual discussion

I actually am going back to /x/ now you guys are a bunch of pupils

It's where you belong.

Later retard. Have fun making tulpa.

t. Someone who belongs seated behind a desk in a classroom

>thinks watching youtube pop sci videos is better than an actual scientific education.

Seriously, I'm still waiting for you to cite your sources. If you want an actual discussion thread then show your workings, faggot. Show the basis of your hypothesis.

Otherwise...

I was hoping there would be some adults here who wanted to talk but it appears to be mostly people who have yet to achieve a full education.

Exactly. You can't show where you got this idea from because you know it's embarrassingly stupid, otherwise you'd have posted it by now.

Later retard. Please don't come back.

It's an idea I had independently of any one particular influence.

I'm not surprised you can't even fathom that this is possible considering your inability to behave like a gentleman.

Bumping this

>Bumping this
Why?
It's either a toll, or a moron who serious thinks "but can you prove me wrong?" is a credible argument.

asking can you prove me wrong is in fact a good way to do science.

t. popper

Not really. I mean there might be (although to say I doubt that would be a massive understatement), but from the way you've argued it you could say that anything that presently exists, exists because of some "organising factor" that is geared towards creating that thing.

No, a hypothesis has to be falsifiable before it can be accepted as theory

>Subatomic particles spontaneously form self aware beings if left to collude for an absolute upper possible maximum of thirteen billion years.
>Isn't this proof of an organizing factor in the universe geared toward creating consciousness or perhaps refining consciousness ?
To rephrase: Life happened, therefore the universe is designed to create life.

Mind you, this is a universe where %99.99999999999 (followed by a lot more 9's) of it is entirely hostile to life as we know it.

If anything, it seems to be a minor miracle that life occurred here, and further, the genetic record tells us that all life hear sprang from a single extraordinarily lucky source. If there were any other genetic sources about at the time, they were so few in number as to be wiped out without a trace.

In a universe geared towards making life - life would be the rule, not the exception. It'd be thriving everywhere, perhaps with just enough difficulty to force evolution, if consciousness was the universe's purpose. If anything, this universe looks as though it was almost designed to prevent life, and we just snuck through under the radar.

More likely it doesn't give a shit one way or the other, and we're just self aggrandizing enough to think otherwise. Should we get off this rock and spread, however, we can damned well take over this place, and make this hostile as fuck universe serve life, whether it wants to or not.

And when something tries so hard to kill you, there's few things more satisfying than making it your bitch.

...

>Le hat maymay
user has a point. If the universe is, somehow, geared towards creating life then how come the majority of the universe is so hostile to life?

he's implying that we are the result of the spontaneous arangment of subatomic particles.

How can you assert, with such certainty, that the universe is hostile to life? Where is your proof of that? Under these specific laws of physics, we cannot claim that it isn't "trying" to create life all the time. I guess you could argue that it isn't very successful, and propose a different universe. But then you would most likely have a very different definition of "life".

It could be designed for life but it's definitely not designed for our form of life.

Maybe because most of the place is a highly radioactive freezing vacuum in which even water can't exist?

I mean, if you were trying to make an environment for life - would you build a death whirlpool expanding so fast that it'll freeze then rip itself apart?

When you buy fish, do you put them in a tank, freeze it, douse it with radiation, and then blow it the fuck up?

>Under these specific laws of physics
That's the problem, the universe determines the laws of physics - these laws of physics are hostile to life as we know it, and only allow it to be supported under conditions that are extraordinarily rare, and, in the grand scale of things, extraordinarily temporary.

The story of life on Earth has been a long tale of an endless struggle against incredible odds spawned from an extraordinary event.

Then again, if the universe just likes those against-all-odds kinda dramatic stories, it's certainly provided itself with one.

That explanation kinda gives you an anime-villain view of God though:
i.4cdn.org/wsg/1498916212407.webm

Okay then, how do you suppose life should exist in a completely homogenous universe? Assuming thermodynamic rules appply, how could you have life (at least our understanding of it) without the universe being as it is?

Except the universe being hostile to life in no way refute the universe's capacity to self-organize into life in the first place

Maybe we're early on the scene. Maybe life is supposed to be rare. Who the fuck knows, why does the OP get dogpiled for suggesting x about the universe with a sample size of one while you clowns can spew the same fedora-tier reddit drivel I see everywhere without anyone batting an eyelash

It couldn't be completely homogenous, but it also wouldn't have to follow any rules of thermodynamics - those only exist because the universe is as haphazardly formed as it is. A universe created and designed to sustain life would be like your hamster trail or aquarium. Nothing but nice, safe, habitable zones - except better, because the the life would be designed too. You wouldn't need to "evolve consciousness", it'd be there from the get go. There'd be no need to refine it, as it'd already be in its optimal form.

But everything about this universe, with all its hazards and ultimately self-destructive nature, screams against design. It's a decaying sandbox - and if it has any purpose, life clearly isn't its central focus, or we wouldn't be sitting on this fragile blue mote of dust, orbiting a nuclear fireball at ludicrous speeds, waiting to be wiped out by the next cosmic golf ball or burst of radiation.

> It's a decaying sandbox - and if it has any purpose, life clearly isn't its central focus, or we wouldn't be sitting on this fragile blue mote of dust, orbiting a nuclear fireball at ludicrous speeds, waiting to be wiped out by the next cosmic golf ball or burst of radiation.

oh my gooooooood dude where are they making you drones man, I've read this exact type of post a fucking million times before

>Except the universe being hostile to life in no way refute the universe's capacity to self-organize into life in the first place
It refutes the idea that life is the purpose of the universe, that it has a goal. If it does, life clearly isn't it. The universe is, part and parcel, primarily anti-life.

Then again, it might just be a matter of perspective. In the end, only sapient beings can determine purpose. Nothing has purpose until something with the ability to cognize it declares it so. So, we can simply declare life is the universe's purpose, and it is so.

If that's the case, clearly the universe is rather shit at its job, however. So if we make such a declaration, I guess we'll have to go out and fix it. Stop up some black holes, lasso some of this shit that's expanding out of control, add some nice teal curtains - I'm sure we could make it livable.

How can that be your definition of life? By that definition, everything that exists in this universe is a form of life. Every single electron and every single star.

More like an absolutely corrosive environment with intelligent discussion.
Better than /x/ - Psychosis and False Beliefs

I think you read that wrong, I didn't go pantheistic consciousness there. Is the litter in your hamster trail life? The water in your fish tank? I suppose defining life in general might help, but we're going to be defining "is" at this rate.

The point is that a universe that was designed could be configured in any fashion. The laws of physics go out the window when you talk about a universe designing itself and having an awareness and a goal, as it determines those laws. If we lived in such a universe and that was its goal, then the universe would be optimal for sustaining life. It isn't - it just barely sustains it, in infinitesimally small amounts, when set against all that is within it that won't sustain it, and all the time spent in states, before and after, where it simply cannot sustain it and the rules it has "chosen". And further, this universe has "chosen" to be suicidal, latest observations suggesting that it apparently, doesn't even recycle. If the universe has a plan at all, life seems to be a rather insignificant part of it.

If it isn't aware, if life is simply a side effect of the forces that came to bare due to some quantum instability event at the dawn of time, or what have you, then a universe where life is so rare, so brief, and so difficult to sustain, makes sense.

Now you may not find that particularly satisfying, but a non sapient universe does leave us free to determine the purpose of the universe for ourselves - should we manage to continue to survive and spread under these near impossible conditions.

You should get checked for a Major Depressive Episode, because this isn't a Tumblr blog.

I find the idea of a universe that is aware of us, would set itself up this way, and do all of this to us on purpose, a much more depressing concept than that of an indifferent cosmic pool we just happened to find ourselves in. At least that leaves us free to determine our own path.

And, thankfully, I see no hard evidence to the contrary, or even a logical contradiction that can't be easily rebuffed. Not that this whole consciousness thing isn't weird in general.

As a wise fictional character once said, "I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."

We're the universe that evolved into becoming disappointed with itself. This means something.

How can awareness form particles if awareness requires that particles already exist?
You're aware of your surroundings because your particles react to other particles.
The circuitry that allows you to be aware is made of particles.
If there were no particles there would not be "awareness" in the sense that we know it and therefore the word "awareness" is the wrong word to use.

find me proof there isn't a teapot in the center of earth
dipshit
im waiting

Not him, but it's "a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars". Cuz, I'm sure you can do some gravity and mass calculations and quickly prove that, if there were a teapot in the center of the Earth, it wouldn't a tea pot anymore.

that is a good graphic, thanks saved

Go back to >If you come back bring us a succubus

Well, let's just have Veeky Forums answer /x/ through the only medium it can:
youtube.com/watch?v=RDvN-g-3SxI