Question about the Universe

[UchiGod Itachi]

Decades back a theory called the Gaia was introduced (The Gaia hypothesis - first proposed in the 70s - doesn't claim that the earth is actually 'alive' - but that all living organisms and their non-living surroundings are bound together into a 'system' that maintains the conditions for life.)

So looking at the bigger picture some scientist believe the universe is a living organism because of it's complex structure and functions others scientist don't ,if the theory that everything was once one (Big Bang Theory) can we consider the universe a Divine intervention or God-like entity.

 

[Your Creepy Stalker]

No we can't.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Decades back a theory called the Gaia was introduced (The Gaia hypothesis - first proposed in the 70s - doesn't claim that the earth is actually 'alive' - but that all living organisms and their non-living surroundings are bound together into a 'system' that maintains the conditions for life.)

So looking at the bigger picture some scientist believe the universe is a living organism because of it's complex structure and functions others scientist don't ,if the theory that everything was once one (Big Bang Theory) can we consider the universe a Divine intervention or God-like entity.

If it's a hypothesis, then it's not a scientific theory. You can make a hypothesis about anything, except there are differences between hypotheses and theories.

1. You only need one concluded study to form a hypothesis.
2. Theories have mountainloads of studies and evidence to support them.
3. Theories need to be 100% right 24/7 on the clock to be a theory. If it's wrong one time, it is completely wrong.
4. Hypotheses, since they have far less data, are much easier to debunk and dismiss.

Going on the hypothesis itself, it is true that the Earth itself is not living, rather it houses living material. That's not to say that the universe is living, because the universe itself is not made of macromolecules, nucleotides, amino acids, etc.

I think the scientists are going on the idea that since the universe has planets that contain life that it too contains life, so it can be classified as living, not that the universe itself is living. Most of the universe is comprised of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Visible elements like stars and planets only make up a singular percentage point of the universe. Living material, like us, are based on how many planets can support life to our specifications, and that number is something like 0.0012%. So to the universe, Life is the exception.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

If it's a hypothesis, then it's not a scientific theory. You can make a hypothesis about anything, except there are differences between hypotheses and theories.

1. You only need one concluded study to form a hypothesis.
2. Theories have mountainloads of studies and evidence to support them.
3. Theories need to be 100% right 24/7 on the clock to be a theory. If it's wrong one time, it is completely wrong.
4. Hypotheses, since they have far less data, are much easier to debunk and dismiss.

Going on the hypothesis itself, it is true that the Earth itself is not living, rather it houses living material. That's not to say that the universe is living, because the universe itself is not made of macromolecules, nucleotides, amino acids, etc.

I think the scientists are going on the idea that since the universe has planets that contain life that it too contains life, so it can be classified as living, not that the universe itself is living. Most of the universe is comprised of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Visible elements like stars and planets only make up a singular percentage point of the universe. Living material, like us, are based on how many planets can support life to our specifications, and that number is something like 0.0012%. So to the universe, Life is the exception.

That's more than winning the lottery, damn. So, aliens confirmed?

 

[FreakensteinAG]

That's more than winning the lottery, damn. So, aliens confirmed?

So while we don't have confirmed evidence that aliens exist, the chances of there being entities other than what's on our planet are pretty damn high. Hell, there might be ways to live other than with our amino acids. There are billions of galaxies housing billions of planets, and a fraction of those billions of planets are in the Goldilocks Zone that can sustain multiple trees of life. Now these planets would support Earth life, but it's possible planets not in the Goldilocks Zone could support other life.

There's this sheet of ice under Europa, a moon of Jupiter, that contains tons of liquid water underneath, due to pressure pushing down on it. Water geysers shoot up from the sheet of ice, so there's variation in temperature. If there's not any microorganisms living under those ice sheets, I'll shoot myself in the pinkie toe.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

So while we don't have confirmed evidence that aliens exist, the chances of there being entities other than what's on our planet are pretty damn high. Hell, there might be ways to live other than with our amino acids. There are billions of galaxies housing billions of planets, and a fraction of those billions of planets are in the Goldilocks Zone that can sustain multiple trees of life. Now these planets would support Earth life, but it's possible planets not in the Goldilocks Zone could support other life.

There's this sheet of ice under Europa, a moon of Jupiter, that contains tons of liquid water underneath, due to pressure pushing down on it. Water geysers shoot up from the sheet of ice, so there's variation in temperature. If there's not any microorganisms living under those ice sheets, I'll shoot myself in the pinkie toe.

Teach me this magic known as Science, senpai, where do I start?

I mean to say, I'm not that much of an idiot when it comes to science but how do I further my knowledge? Did you learn all of this in school?

 

[Multiply]

So while we don't have confirmed evidence that aliens exist, the chances of there being entities other than what's on our planet are pretty damn high. Hell, there might be ways to live other than with our amino acids. There are billions of galaxies housing billions of planets, and a fraction of those billions of planets are in the Goldilocks Zone that can sustain multiple trees of life. Now these planets would support Earth life, but it's possible planets not in the Goldilocks Zone could support other life.

There's this sheet of ice under Europa, a moon of Jupiter, that contains tons of liquid water underneath, due to pressure pushing down on it. Water geysers shoot up from the sheet of ice, so there's variation in temperature. If there's not any microorganisms living under those ice sheets, I'll shoot myself in the pinkie toe.

Apparently NASA plans to swoop by when a geyser shoots out and scoop up some of the water and analyze it. :lol.

 

[Aim64C]

Decades back a theory called the Gaia was introduced (The Gaia hypothesis - first proposed in the 70s - doesn't claim that the earth is actually 'alive' - but that all living organisms and their non-living surroundings are bound together into a 'system' that maintains the conditions for life.)

So looking at the bigger picture some scientist believe the universe is a living organism because of it's complex structure and functions others scientist don't ,if the theory that everything was once one (Big Bang Theory) can we consider the universe a Divine intervention or God-like entity.

This is, really, a bit more philosophical than scientific.

It is true that we are developing a scientific understanding of the interdependence of life. For example - many digestive illnesses are not so much our bodies getting sick, but a failure of the bacterial colonies that survive in our intestines. This also spills over into diet - constant variation of diet is not necessarily good, because the colonies of bacteria in our gut adapt to certain types of material, the ingestion of certain chemical compounds (such as the Capsaicin in certain peppers), etc.

There is also some research going into the ability of plants to communicate via signals in the root system, as well as how greater biological cycles (such as pollen releases and the like) serve to synchronize and trigger other processes within higher (and lower) organisms.

There are, at least, mechanisms through which life could be far more intertwined than our industrialized sciences currently understand. There is, even, a developing understanding of how life has forever changed geology - 'evolving rocks.' Consider how important oil is, and where current theory holds it comes from. Coal and even a considerable amount of limestone are the result of biological processes.

So, it would make sense that much of life, today, would have developed to make use of what the previous iterations of life have left behind - or what they are currently doing. We cultivate plants and livestock much like our bodies cultivate bacteria to suit its own purposes.

To extend this to the greater processes and cycles of interstellar space is a bit of a leap of faith, since we have such a minimal understanding of space (Newton's laws of Gravitation and Einstein's Relativity do not explain galactic formation - hence dark matter... which no one can find and measurements have illustrated that it must exist in a spherical concentration about the galaxy in an even distribution... which makes even less sense than our theory of gravity simply not working on the galactic scale - or our measurements of interstellar space being hideously off for some reason). We don't have much experience with space, other planets, and other life forms in space. Are we the bacteria in the gut of a larger process? Are we wolves howling at the moon? Are we apes in a research laboratory?

Now - going on to the faith/philosophy route - I do believe that God is a higher process in all of this and that life has a purpose beyond simple reproduction before death (and competition therein). I believe that most other sentient beings would have developed the question of God - whether or not this higher process exists and where they are within it. Perhaps those who have seen more of the universe would move it from "faith" to "theory" or even "law" category - but I'm not sure that changes the philosophical nature of the question.

 

[Ripple Hole]

Teach me this magic known as Science, senpai, where do I start?

I mean to say, I'm not that much of an idiot when it comes to science but how do I further my knowledge? Did you learn all of this in school?

As a sceince expert myself I shall tell you real sceince is only learned
via watching "Looking for Bigfoot" and "Mothman" documentaries.

 

[FreakensteinAG]

Teach me this magic known as Science, senpai, where do I start?

I mean to say, I'm not that much of an idiot when it comes to science but how do I further my knowledge? Did you learn all of this in school?

I'm a Teacher's Assistant for Physics 350, Astronomy, in my university. If you wanna know lots about the universe, I'd go there. All you need to enter Astronomy is just Basic Physics, but it depends on the school. Of course, you could learn about the planets by using internet resources, but they tend to throw you full force with vocabulary you're supposed to know already, and they go into incredible detail with physics I don't know about. The university class takes it all at an easy pace.

We even know the cheapest way on how to Terraform Mars: Drill and Heat. Let loose all that CO2 trapped in the rock, and the already-present atmosphere on Mars will thicken and the temperature will increase and start to rain liquid water.

Apparently NASA plans to swoop by when a geyser shoots out and scoop up some of the water and analyze it.

That'd be great. Every time we launch a spacecraft, and it's successful, we learn and invent so much technology.

You must be registered for see links

 

[UchiGod Itachi]

If it's a hypothesis, then it's not a scientific theory. You can make a hypothesis about anything, except there are differences between hypotheses and theories.

1. You only need one concluded study to form a hypothesis.
2. Theories have mountainloads of studies and evidence to support them.
3. Theories need to be 100% right 24/7 on the clock to be a theory. If it's wrong one time, it is completely wrong.
4. Hypotheses, since they have far less data, are much easier to debunk and dismiss.

Going on the hypothesis itself, it is true that the Earth itself is not living, rather it houses living material. That's not to say that the universe is living, because the universe itself is not made of macromolecules, nucleotides, amino acids, etc.

I think the scientists are going on the idea that since the universe has planets that contain life that it too contains life, so it can be classified as living, not that the universe itself is living. Most of the universe is comprised of Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Visible elements like stars and planets only make up a singular percentage point of the universe. Living material, like us, are based on how many planets can support life to our specifications, and that number is something like 0.0012%. So to the universe, Life is the exception.

Sorry about that i should have example myself more clearly i got it from this article i know that the earth isn't a living life form but is necessary for us to survive but how exactly does our bodies know how to adapt in order to survive? For some circumstance like Neanderthals have mutated to survive in heavy cold weather mini ice ages, how exactly did the universe know that we needed the rotations of planets in order to survive is something were not seeing subconsciously doing something?

You must be registered for see links

Ok, don't shoot, I'm just the messenger!! After I've seen pictures of some cosmic Nebulae I was sorta thinking if these galactic structures could be gigantic intelligent living beings with a totally incomprehensible nature to us. I mean, before I elaborate my point let me bring here, James Lovelock and his Gaia Theory aka "biogeochemistry hypothesis":
According to him, the biosphere and the physical component of the Earth, atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere (I would like to add ionosphere), are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that keeps the climate and biogeochemical processes, preferably in homeostasis, though stable multiple dynamic balance adjustments, self-controlled by internal mechanisms. In another words: Earth is ALIVE and is a gigantic organism that feels and reacts.

You must be registered for see images

James Lovelock

This theory totally changes our condition here. The life, the living things are results of the self-regulatory geochemical processes of this organism, according to their own needs. I don't know if we can say that the Earth is "intelligent", but no doubt she is "conscious."
So, lets expand the Gaia hypothesis to the whole universe: What if all cosmic bodies, stars, system of stars, galaxies, nebulae... form conscious macro-organisms??? Now I made my point: What if these macro-organisms form intelligent beings of totally incomprehensible nature to us??? Ok, before you say What the heck are you smoking??", take a look at these pics:

You must be registered for see images

Above, a snapshot of the B1509 nebula, taken by Chandra X-ray observatory. Needless to mention it's perfectly hand shaped...

You must be registered for see images

Above, the Helix nebula aka "God's eye"... Well, this pic it's self-explanatory...

You must be registered for see images

The nebula above, recently announced by ESO (European South Observatory), named GUM-19, through the infrared appears dark on one half, and brilliant in another. On one side, the hot hydrogen gas is illuminated by a blue star called V391 Velorum. The dark side totally looks like a half humanoid face. Below I cropped the image and mirrored it, in order to highlight the face:

You must be registered for see images

And please guys, cut this "pareidolia" BS. I know that modern science claims that dying stars create fantasy-like sculpture of gas and dust, but HOW some of these "sculptures" have perfect shapes of human body parts?? The ancient Hindu civilizations claimed the universe is a massive intelligent being that they called "Brahman", whose the nature is described as transpersonal, personal and impersonal and all life cycles depend on its "breathing" process, that this same modern science treats as "expansion-contraction" of the universe. Thus, I think it's plausible states that we may be like microbes living in a cosmic host.

I thought the right place to this thread would be here, but if this subject should be in another topic, please, any moderator move on.

So guys, bring the ideas!!!

This is, really, a bit more philosophical than scientific.

It is true that we are developing a scientific understanding of the interdependence of life. For example - many digestive illnesses are not so much our bodies getting sick, but a failure of the bacterial colonies that survive in our intestines. This also spills over into diet - constant variation of diet is not necessarily good, because the colonies of bacteria in our gut adapt to certain types of material, the ingestion of certain chemical compounds (such as the Capsaicin in certain peppers), etc.

There is also some research going into the ability of plants to communicate via signals in the root system, as well as how greater biological cycles (such as pollen releases and the like) serve to synchronize and trigger other processes within higher (and lower) organisms.

There are, at least, mechanisms through which life could be far more intertwined than our industrialized sciences currently understand. There is, even, a developing understanding of how life has forever changed geology - 'evolving rocks.' Consider how important oil is, and where current theory holds it comes from. Coal and even a considerable amount of limestone are the result of biological processes.

So, it would make sense that much of life, today, would have developed to make use of what the previous iterations of life have left behind - or what they are currently doing. We cultivate plants and livestock much like our bodies cultivate bacteria to suit its own purposes.

To extend this to the greater processes and cycles of interstellar space is a bit of a leap of faith, since we have such a minimal understanding of space (Newton's laws of Gravitation and Einstein's Relativity do not explain galactic formation - hence dark matter... which no one can find and measurements have illustrated that it must exist in a spherical concentration about the galaxy in an even distribution... which makes even less sense than our theory of gravity simply not working on the galactic scale - or our measurements of interstellar space being hideously off for some reason). We don't have much experience with space, other planets, and other life forms in space. Are we the bacteria in the gut of a larger process? Are we wolves howling at the moon? Are we apes in a research laboratory?

Now - going on to the faith/philosophy route - I do believe that God is a higher process in all of this and that life has a purpose beyond simple reproduction before death (and competition therein). I believe that most other sentient beings would have developed the question of God - whether or not this higher process exists and where they are within it. Perhaps those who have seen more of the universe would move it from "faith" to "theory" or even "law" category - but I'm not sure that changes the philosophical nature of the question.

That makes sense but not trying to get to deep in religion you say that you believe in God but doesn't science profound knowledge conflict with your belief?How far can Science & Philosophical can they both be two-sides of the same coin?

 

[Aim64C]

That makes sense but not trying to get to deep in religion you say that you believe in God but doesn't science profound knowledge conflict with your belief?How far can Science & Philosophical can they both be two-sides of the same coin?

Logically, any God with its own universe would have defined rules to that universe for the beings within it to be capable of experiencing something. Even if we go with the idea that God is a computer programmer and can use cheat codes to break what we understand as causal laws of physics upon a whim - there must be some rule set forming the experience to be modified. The equations that describe how the universe behaves must still exist even if 'constants' can be made free-floating variables.

Science is simply the attempt to discover causal relationships within the universe. When X is increased upon the given system, Y behaves as thus: ... .

I would argue that true Science is impossible to perform in good faith without a solid faith in the concept of a divine entity - even if that divinity is simply a set of yet-to-be-discerned mathematical relationships.

Humans love to create theories - from evolution to global warming to electricity and the atomic theory - we love them. The problem is that, scientifically, these are really only guesses - approximations and models as to what is really going on. A single experiment can prove a law to be incorrect. It doesn't invalidate all known relationships, but it changes the underlying assumptions about the theorized mechanics.

Man likes to become attached to his own explanations for things - particularly when lacking faith in a higher entity. This is where we get the 'science' that evolves into politics. Global warming is such a thing - the 'science' behind it is junk. The estimates for ice loss were off. The oceans aren't rising. Global temperatures aren't rising as predicted, and millions of dollars is being funneled into projects to figure out "where the warming went" (and it's not in the ocean). The best science has to offer is: "it would be horribly irresponsible for us to act upon any environmental predictions."

But politicians have a lot to gain from convincing people that they will ruin polar bears for their kids, and the like. Entire world monetary systems are being proposed and built around taxing carbon (which is ridiculous). U.N. Agenda 21 and its add-ons use global warming as a grounds for restricting property rights, restricting free movement of citizens, and enforcing strict controls upon various industries (only 'approved' people need to be telling the world what is useful for it to do in its work day).

Within that, I see Science as the attempt to discover that which is higher than you. In order to do this, you must be able to remain critical of your own position - to humble your own view and consider the ways in which it may be wrong.

Unfortunately, much of what people associate as being science is little more than dogma spun up within the drama of the human political system as the monkeys attempt to gain dominion over the tribe. They are little more than parasites riding upon the coat-tails of the technological boom at the turn of the last century - a boom brought about by real scientists who understood the hazards inherent within the human ego.