Is the universe friendly?

Narz

keeping it real
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
30,537
Location
Haverhill, UK
I was exercising listening to this song* & trying to remember the Einstein quote about whether the universe is benevolent or not so I found it.

Spoiler :
"I think the most important question facing humanity is, ‘Is the universe a friendly place?’ This is the first and most basic question all people must answer for themselves.

"For if we decide that the universe is an unfriendly place, then we will use our technology, our scientific discoveries and our natural resources to achieve safety and power by creating bigger walls to keep out the unfriendliness and bigger weapons to destroy all that which is unfriendly and I believe that we are getting to a place where technology is powerful enough that we may either completely isolate or destroy ourselves as well in this process.

"If we decide that the universe is neither friendly nor unfriendly and that God is essentially ‘playing dice with the universe’, then we are simply victims to the random toss of the dice and our lives have no real purpose or meaning.

"But if we decide that the universe is a friendly place, then we will use our technology, our scientific discoveries and our natural resources to create tools and models for understanding that universe. Because power and safety will come through understanding its workings and its motives."

"God does not play dice with the universe,"

--Albert Einstein


I don't quite agree w his line of reasoning that believing in some inherent meaning/order will create a more sane society. The statistics show the opposite (the more secular societies are less violent/destructive/warlike).

I do find it exhausting tho contemplating a meaningless universe. It's energizing to think you know something even tho you don't.

For me this question is something I can't really get out of my head, I imagine that's pretty common.

* is it a forest of love or just a forest?
 
Most likely we will never know the answer, so we have to make a judgment call for ourselves. The choice one makes will set one upon a path unlike the paths offered by other choices. Choose wisely and with conviction.
 
Most likely we will never know the answer, so we have to make a judgment call for ourselves. The choice one makes will set one upon a path unlike the paths offered by other choices. Choose wisely and with conviction.

Its probably better to choose wisely and tentatively than foolishly with conviction.
My own uncertain and wavering opinion is that the universe is neither friendly or unfriendly, not so much it doesn't care as it just isn't aware.
 
Its probably better to choose wisely and tentatively than foolishly with conviction.
My own uncertain and wavering opinion is that the universe is neither friendly or unfriendly, not so much it doesn't care as it just isn't aware.
Of course the universe is aware. Every single one of us is part of the universe, and we are all aware of our own perspectives within it.

We are starstuff, literally made from the remnants of supergiant stars that were born, lived briefly, and died billions of years ago in violent supernova explosions.

The universe is not only "out there". It's also right here, typing these words, making use of the same 92 elements as everyone else, although in a different way.
 
Lately, my universe has been about as friendly as a gang rape.

But it's getting better.
 
The Universe is blind to our sorrows and indifferent to our pains. - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Since you and I are part of the Universe, then we would also be indifferent and uncaring. - Norm Macdonald
 
I don't quite agree w his line of reasoning that believing in some inherent meaning/order will create a more sane society. The statistics show the opposite (the more secular societies are less violent/destructive/warlike).

Secular does not mean devoid of meaning
 
The Universe is blind to our sorrows and indifferent to our pains. - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Since you and I are part of the Universe, then we would also be indifferent and uncaring. - Norm Macdonald
Tyson can take a hike. He might have a cool story about being mentored by Sagan, but he's light-years inferior to Sagan even 15 years after Sagan's death.
 
Tyson can take a hike. He might have a cool story about being mentored by Sagan, but he's light-years inferior to Sagan even 15 years after Sagan's death.

This is still my favorite meme
 
This is still my favorite meme
Unfortunately, Dawkins' view also applies to right-wing politicians. I've mentioned this draft curriculum that's a political hot potato in my province now... this mess was thrown together by a mishmash of Christian fundamentalists, none of whom are elementary school teachers, and some of whom are Americans who are so ignorant of basic facts about Canada that they just make <organic waste material> up.

One of the things these idiots did was eliminate dinosaurs from the science curriculum. Completely. And the Minister of Gutting Public Education is too stupid to understand why this is a really bad idea that actually helps shoot her own party in its idiotic feet.

Dinosaurs are cool.

The Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology is a really cool place, a world-class research facility that finds fossils, studies them, and allows the public to have some access to the research part of the facility. It's a great place to take students of all ages on field trips, whether they're in elementary school or a class of college-level physical geography students (which is how I was able to go there the second time I went; I got permission from the instructor to tag along with another class since my own class hadn't had time to do this trip that was promised).

Kids really like this stuff.

Geology is an important aspect of paleontology, so some kids come for the dinosaurs and leave wanting to know more about geology (I did, though I still think dinosaurs are cool as well).

Kids who are into geology sometimes decide to make it their career.

This can lead to consulting jobs for governments who want to know where the oil and gas and other environmentally destructive goodies are, so they have a better idea of where to drill and put the mines so they can make $$$$$$$$$$$$.

But if the next generation of kids in this province doesn't get to learn about dinosaurs, fewer of them will get the idea that paleontology and geology are really interesting, and fewer yet will become geologists who will know where the good stuff is underground.

The government currently running my province is too stupid to understand this. And since I value the environment, I don't think I'm going to point out this connect-the-dots trail of educational common sense.

(and yes, I know that you can be a geologist and not have your career go in such destructive directions, but fossil fuels and mines are all this government here cares about)
 
Of course the universe is aware. Every single one of us is part of the universe, and we are all aware of our own perspectives within it.

We are starstuff, literally made from the remnants of supergiant stars that were born, lived briefly, and died billions of years ago in violent supernova explosions.

The universe is not only "out there". It's also right here, typing these words, making use of the same 92 elements as everyone else, although in a different way.

We are part of the universe but that we are aware doesn't make the universe aware. We aren't a group consciousness.
 
The way I look at life as I know it, terrestrially, I see life, whether by accident or design creates conditions for more life. So yes, in a sense, the universe is friendly. The moon and earth's molten core are friendly, as the nearby star Sol with its billion of so years of life left. Beyond that...what role the comets and most distant objects that reach us play we have yet to discover.

Even if the conditions for life are so rare across space and time that we may never discover another planet with conscious life forms, even if for that vast majority of Time and over the vast distances between stars there is only hostile(to life) conditions, need not define the system as a whole because maybe that's what it takes to create just the chance for one or a few, brief, Friendly spots for life, and that the moments of actual joy for said life are but brief and fleeting, even so it may be worth saying indeed the universe is a friendly place.
 
What does the universe being friendly mean? Does it mean the universe has its own motivation and free will, such that it can choose for things to happen that are good for us (or bad if it is unfriendly)? Or does it mean that the sentient inhabitants of the universe are friendly?

This is still my favorite meme

I really do not understand this scientist / philosopher conflict. We have had philosophers working at our place, involved in the formalisation of logic. In particular they tend to work on defining ontologies and the relationship between them. This is very important in computer analysis of scientific knowledge, which is an important tool in my sort of work. I suspect it is people who main contact with philosophy is the big famous books from ages ago, rather than what is happening today.
 
What does the universe being friendly mean? Does it mean the universe has its own motivation and free will, such that it can choose for things to happen that are good for us (or bad if it is unfriendly)? Or does it mean that the sentient inhabitants of the universe are friendly?



I really do not understand this scientist / philosopher conflict. We have had philosophers working at our place, involved in the formalisation of logic. In particular they tend to work on defining ontologies and the relationship between them. This is very important in computer analysis of scientific knowledge, which is an important tool in my sort of work. I suspect it is people who main contact with philosophy is the big famous books from ages ago, rather than what is happening today.

Tl;dr, there is no scientist-philosopher conflict; those pop scientist just ain't all that
 
@Lexicus Nice meme seeing all those nicely grouped; and of course I lean towards Schrodinger.
 
Top Bottom