Yay

[Jimmy]

If existence always was or without beginning its weird it took up until nearly 14 billion yrs ago for our universe to form and nearly 4 billion years ago for the first signs of life.

something doesn’t add up.
Somethings off.

Anyway one can suppose existence will never end assuming it’s without beginning.

With this senecio I’m guessing it’s going to be a really really long time for life to begin again after our universe ends.

Something is really off now.

Who knows life may never exist again after we’re gone. That would just seem way off.

Having said all that the only logical thing that would put sense to this is if life existed say 500 trillion years ago and that it will exist say 500 trillion years down the road. And I would imagine that it was and will be basically the same as it is now

 

[ChristineM]

There are a couple of hypothesis that life is the result of entropy and can only exist for a relatively short time in universal terms

Here is one of the papers
Why did life emerge?

 

[SalixIncendium]

If existence always was or without beginning its weird it took up until nearly 14 billion yrs ago for our universe to form and nearly 4 billion years ago for the first signs of life.

something doesn’t add up.
Somethings off.

Anyway one can suppose existence will never end assuming it’s without beginning.

With this senecio I’m guessing it’s going to be a really really long time for life to begin again after our universe ends.

Something is really off now.

Who knows life may never exist again after we’re gone. That would just seem way off.

Having said all that the only logical thing that would put sense to this is if life existed say 500 trillion years ago and that it will exist say 500 trillion years down the road. And I would imagine that it was and will be basically the same as it is now

You're assuming this is the first time the universe has come into existence. Hindu cosmology states otherwise. It views time as cyclical rather than linear.

Hindu units of time - Wikipedia

 

[Valjean]

These conclusions rely on a simplistic misrepresentation of physics and cosmology, Jimmy. Your conclusions don't follow logically.

Reality is much more complicated -- and counter-intuitive. Common sense, based on one's individual experience of the everyday world, is misleading.

 

[Brian2]

If existence always was or without beginning its weird it took up until nearly 14 billion yrs ago for our universe to form and nearly 4 billion years ago for the first signs of life.

something doesn’t add up.
Somethings off.

That sound right.

Anyway one can suppose existence will never end assuming it’s without beginning.

With this senecio I’m guessing it’s going to be a really really long time for life to begin again after our universe ends.

Something is really off now.

Not that it would matter for us how long it might be.
Hindus get around it by saying that everything is alive and is God and the coming and going of the universe is cyclical and we and everything is God who does not seem to know who He is. Interesting philosophy and no doubt some Hindus would not agree with what I said in total.

Science seems to want to say that life is an emergent product of the material universe and some would say that life is in matter and the idea seems to be also, along with Hindus that it is all cyclical. But of course there are probably and will be many hypotheses. For some reason they all seem to trump the idea that a God created it al and gave life. But of course science knows best because it is based on evidence, even though it is evidence that does not exist for all these ideas.

The cyclical idea seems ridiculous because it would mean that all this growing and disappearing of the universe has been going on for an infinite number of times and that sounds silly and impossible as how could we be be at the infiniteth number and keep adding to it.
So in a mathematical way the first cause is necessary imo. And make no mistake it is an opinion because science is always right even when it comes up with nonsense.
But of course science heals itself (just as the universe created itself and life comes from dead matter) and so one day it will realise it is nonsense. That might mean that it is not mathematics of science which says strange things but is people with their philosophies and world/universe views which say things. The whole problem is philosophical.
Anyway evidence seems to be pointing to the universe expanding at an ever increasing rate and that hardly bodes will for the cyclical view.

Who knows life may never exist again after we’re gone. That would just seem way off.

Having said all that the only logical thing that would put sense to this is if life existed say 500 trillion years ago and that it will exist say 500 trillion years down the road. And I would imagine that it was and will be basically the same as it is now

That sounds like the cyclical model and if it has been going on for eternity then it has happened an infinite number of times and next time it will be infinite number plus one.
But if you see my point you could always go for the first cause idea. That idea has real evidence compared to just philosophies and world views that end up with a default position when they refuse to accept a first cause.

Sorry for the rave, I got carried away.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are a couple of hypothesis that life is the result of entropy and can only exist for a relatively short time in universal terms

Here is one of the papers
Why did life emerge?

The article strikes me as woowoo gussied up with science terminology.
I see life as something that occurs in certain conditions, & that entropy
is simply one of the (2nd) laws of thermodynamics that everything obeys.

 

[ChristineM]

The article strikes me as woowoo gussied up with science terminology.
I see life as something that occurs in certain conditions, & that entropy
is simply one of the (2nd) laws of thermodynamics that everything obeys.

Including life.

It's a hypothesis... People are not betting their lives on it. Although there are several different papers following the same route

 

[Revoltingest]

Including life.

Life obeys all the laws of physics.
Why single out one of them as a cause?

 

[ChristineM]

Life obeys all the laws of physics.
Why single out one of them as a cause?

Because it is an overriding phenomenon, without it the elements required for life could not hav formed. And as it continues the energy required to hold that life together becomes less and less in any given volume until there is not enough to sustain life.

Which other laws have so much sway over the arrow of time...

 

[Revoltingest]

Because it is an overriding phenomenon, without it the elements required for life could not hav formed. And as it continues the energy required to hold that life together becomes less and less in any given volume until there is not enough to sustain life.

Which other laws have so much sway over the arrow of time...

People seem to obsess over "entropy" (2nd law).
All it means is that processes can only be reversed
if energy is added to a system. Nothing magical.
The other laws of thermodynamics govern life too.
As do other laws of physics.
Cars, planes, computers, vibrators, haggis...they
too obey the 2nd law. But entropy didn't create them.

 

[Jimmy]

These conclusions rely on a simplistic misrepresentation of physics and cosmology, Jimmy. Your conclusions don't follow logically.

Reality is much more complicated -- and counter-intuitive. Common sense, based on one's individual experience of the everyday world, is misleading.

Ok logic man

 

[ChristineM]

People seem to obsess over "entropy" (2nd law).
All it means is that processes can only be reversed
if energy is added to a system. Nothing magical.
The other laws of thermodynamics govern life too.
As do other laws of physics.
Cars, planes, computers, vibrators, haggis...they
too obey the 2nd law. But entropy didn't create them.

Decline from order, the decline of quantum bits and pieces forming hydrogen, of hydrogen declining to helium... to the atoms from which cars, planes, computers, vibrators, haggis and yes, life are made. Without that gradual decline the universe would be a ball of highly compressed quanta.

 

[Revoltingest]

Decline from order, the decline of quantum bits and pieces forming hydrogen, of hydrogen declining to helium... to the atoms from which cars, planes, computers, vibrators, haggis and yes, life are made. Without that gradual decline the universe would be a ball of highly compressed quanta.

Uh....OK.....

 

[Jimmy]

That sound right.



Not that it would matter for us how long it might be.
Hindus get around it by saying that everything is alive and is God and the coming and going of the universe is cyclical and we and everything is God who does not seem to know who He is. Interesting philosophy and no doubt some Hindus would not agree with what I said in total.

Science seems to want to say that life is an emergent product of the material universe and some would say that life is in matter and the idea seems to be also, along with Hindus that it is all cyclical. But of course there are probably and will be many hypotheses. For some reason they all seem to trump the idea that a God created it al and gave life. But of course science knows best because it is based on evidence, even though it is evidence that does not exist for all these ideas.

The cyclical idea seems ridiculous because it would mean that all this growing and disappearing of the universe has been going on for an infinite number of times and that sounds silly and impossible as how could we be be at the infiniteth number and keep adding to it.
So in a mathematical way the first cause is necessary imo. And make no mistake it is an opinion because science is always right even when it comes up with nonsense.
But of course science heals itself (just as the universe created itself and life comes from dead matter) and so one day it will realise it is nonsense. That might mean that it is not mathematics of science which says strange things but is people with their philosophies and world/universe views which say things. The whole problem is philosophical.
Anyway evidence seems to be pointing to the universe expanding at an ever increasing rate and that hardly bodes will for the cyclical view.



That sounds like the cyclical model and if it has been going on for eternity then it has happened an infinite number of times and next time it will be infinite number plus one.
But if you see my point you could always go for the first cause idea. That idea has real evidence compared to just philosophies and world views that end up with a default position when they refuse to accept a first cause.

Sorry for the rave, I got carried away.

Not talkin bout cyclic universe
I’m talkin bout all of existence