Tuesday 28 August 2007

The Meaning of Life

On the basis of a very interesting post over at Electro-Kevin's I've finally decided to post on my M theory, or theory of everything.
For those of you who don't know some of my pet amateur interests are Evolutionary History and the Physics of the Universe.

Mainly because I really do want to know how everything works. That really is my life goal, if I have one.
After, all it's how we tick.
And WHY we tick.

I think it's actually quite obvious, but phyicists and theologians alike ignore the obvious synthesis in their thoughts.

Back to Basics.

I think I've said before, but Genesis really should begin with;

'In the begining there was the Energy quanta.
It appeared at a point.
It became subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics.'

That's it.
That's your Big Bang.

And the rest is history.
Just thermodynamics running the universe down.
Till Heat Death.
It's all just one reaction.

Insert Energy.
It wears itself out.

Now here's where it gets interesting.

Firstly, let me just state that the Laws of thermodynamics are ruthless.
You CANNOT break them.
All other laws are subject to them.

What this means is that the most efficient of all mechanisms is the determination of energy to waste itself.
To bring the reaction to a close.
The energy NEEDS to be expounded.

The universe CANNOT be any more efficient than it is.
In terms of what it does, waste energy, it IS perfect.

In other words, if we have evolved consciousness, it follows, the universe must have. If we who use it's laws are conscious, if computers which use its laws are conscious, the universe MUST be. For it NOT to be, would be it NOT utilising one of its own properties- the ability to transmit electronic information to direct results.

Of course it does.
That's how things happen.
That is how it was initially able to set the necessary constants to acheive total dissipation in the shortest time.
Don't worry, if the life of the universe is a year, we haven't passed the first second.
This is significant.
It should give you hope.

The most efficient way to use up energy is by finding chain reactions. Stars are an example of this.
Nuclear reactions are chain reactions, overall they accelerate over time, actually using up more energy faster and faster, and being capable of setting up an increasing number of such reactions.

All of which brings Doomsday closer.

And what of life?

This to me, is the best description of life;
'Any series of chemical reactions, which, once intiated, are capable of setting up identical reactions from scratch, so that over time, there is an increased number of such reactions, such growth being permanently exponential.'

Another chain reaction.
Passed on by DNA.

And the longer it goes on, the quicker it speeds up.

Complexity creates complexity, it leads faster and faster to more efficient ways to use energy.

Life is one of the Universe's better ideas.

So it does create us for purely selfish reasons.
But have hope.

The universe, as I said above, is perfect it what it does. It created us to serve it, but see how!
To serve it's purposes, we need to succeed.
We need to spread and get more advanced, build spaceships, invent amazing ways to use energy, breed, colonise other worlds, get busy using up the energy.
So it makes us feel good when we do it's bidding.

As I say, it's perfect. It made sure that we would only feel REALLY happy, when what we did was what it wanted.

It's not a chaos.
Progress IS real.
Love IS real.

The Universe does have a truly amazing history written for Man, in the billions of millenia that will pass before Doomsday.

E-K, THAT'S God.


Anonymous said...

Your and EK are both very smart guys and are onto something!

When I think that life is too complicated or fucked up or whatever...I think about the creation of humans...how our bodies work perfectly to create another life and how truly amazing and complex it is. The stars are the same...so complex, but so beautiful!

Anonymous said...

Blimey Ingsoc - you have solved the problems of the millenia and convinced me of the existence of God!

Are you fed up with me yet?

I am chatting with Jenny! on Gmail.... that does it for me!

Anonymous said...

Yes, Mr Mutley.
I'm confidently expecting Mr Crushed to come up with a cure for pediatric AIDS in one of his forthcoming posts.A comprehenisve Middle East peace plan might emerge too if we're really lucky.
Jenny!!!is a revelation, isn't she?

Anonymous said...

Our purpose (if the universe can be said to have intent) is to transmit and transport DNA through time and space. It contains surplus information for us, so this is my rationale for saying so.

The dissipation of energy you speak of is fine - but are there other realms to be yet discovered ? Scientists intend to use gravitons which have closed strings to explore other dimensions in which there may be different laws on entropy and thermodynamics - an interchange between our worlds.

You put things very well. I like the idea of the universe becoming sentient vicariously through us. There is definitely an awakening going on if you look at the history of enlightenment throughout evolution - but is this a by-product of DNA rather than its primary function ?

As for God - a innitially primitive impulse evolving with us ? Not what we were told exactly is it ?

Anonymous said...

I don't go for this new age, adolescent God thing. They are two different things. The universe may be developing intelligence, but that doesnt make it God as God must pre-date the universe.

the problem I have with atheists is that they place their own level of intelligence onto God in order to prove his 'in-existence'.

Is it too much to believe that God could have forseen (created?) heat-death and created life as the only way to carry on the energy and life-force of the universe.

Much as you see Jesus as a once-only visitor, who set the seed for humanity to follow, heat death need not be the death of the universe as life is there to carry it on.

Maybe life isnt just a random generation of molecules after all. If God can create thermodynamics and quarks, and mesons, and the beuaty of mathematics.

To me, a God who would create a universe which is not self-sustaining is a lesser God of one who can create a perfectly self-sustaining universe. Life and, more accurately, intelligence makes this possible.

Does it really take such a leap of faith to believe that he created the seeds to create life?

Anonymous said...

Crushed, is stephen Hawking looking at his books sales figures and quivering? Does he know about you?

Anonymous said...

Hawkings always quivvers - and dribbles.

Anonymous said...

I like your summation of the universe, evolution and the stars and yes it all comes down to love -- it IS the only reality in our Soul.

Anonymous said...

Dawkins is the last gasp of scientific materialism.

Anonymous said...

wow, i would put a copyright on your blog soon so a ground-breaking paper on the universe and life isn't "discovered" from harvard or oxford scientists.

Anonymous said...

I have done that already with my blog Mr Rafi... also I own Crushed and EK as I brought their copyrights as wel...

tee hee!

Anonymous said...

So what I am taking from this is that organized religion is actually a waste of energy which is really the whole point of the universe and the true intent of God.

The next question that comes to mind is that I sure seem to use more energy fornicating on a Sunday morning than singing hymns so which is better?

Anonymous said...

Good Lord! Your explanation sounds remarkably close to mine, which I've had on the internet since 1999. Only thing that's different is I use lots of cool pictures : http://blog.twowolves.co.uk/the-meaning-of-life/ and I gave it a tongue in cheek gravitas…

Anonymous said...

Okay... I find your explanation acceptable... and as usual, you always conclude your post to well :-)

Anonymous said...

I haven't had a chance to respond, Crushed, I didn't want to quickly read or flippantly reply to your post.

But I do think that this too simply explains the most complex thing we ever face. You (we) are stunted only by language and understanding, because I think you have touched the truth and revolve around the unknown. If it makes you feel better to define and organize your thoughts on the subject at hand, far be it for anyone else to say "You're wrong". But, in fact, it is yet again conjecture. That is my thought, since you asked.

Anonymous said...

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao . . .

But you've given it a good shot, what with the limitations of human language and thought and all that . . .

Time for a little tai chi on the back porch . . .

Ciao . . .

Anonymous said...

Jenny- Complex is the point- complex uses up more energy faster.
The universe loves it.

Mutley- The main argument betwen Atheists and Theists is whether or not you can call the Universe conscious.
I think we can.

Stan- I know very little of medicine, though my brother, being a doctor, finds the AIDs virus fascinating.

E-K= The same laws would apply to any universe. The laws of thermodynamics, we must assume are inviolable in any universe. They are the laws of everything, if you like.
In other words, all universes are governed by the sole variable- the initial energy quanta.

I've never ben happy with the concept of gravitons- string theory eliminates them, which to me is a pint in its favour.
They are unnecessary, and conflict with the principle of Ockham's razor.
As for what we were told, people can only theorise on the facts they know.

I'm glad you spotted my implication that God and the Universe are- neither came first.

David- I find the idea that God sat around and worked everything out in some great design studio to be a rather limiting view of his omnipotence.
But in a sense, I think 'He' DOES work everything out.
The real difference, in my view between the experienced universe, and the 'shadow' universes it is necessary to postulate due to quantum machanics, is that that we experience the option the universe chooses, the one that leads to heat death quickest.

Everything you have ever done wrong, you did wrong so the universe would acheive what it wanted fastest.

Welshcakes- I rather doubt it, and I wouldn't want him to. I DO happen to think that my theory IS a realistic interpretation of what we experience and I would be interested in the take a physicist would have on it- after all, I'm only an amateur.

E-K- He is however, a fairly easy writer to read and does explain the universe very well.
His ability to conceptualise is highly impressive.

Alexys- As I have said before, the ability to feel love is something we evolved to bond us together, I do think we are evolving to become a truly collective species and that's where Love is driving us.

The Love that our descendants will feel for eachother will be huge compared to ours and it won't be as narrowly limited and conditional as ours is.

Shelley- Dawkins is an interesting character- some of his books I read, others not.
On strictly biological and evolutionary matters, he is very informative and quite profound in some ways.
His crusade against Theism is almost ideological.

Raffi- I'd smile if it was.
There are aspects to the theory I haven't yet touched on here, the more boring bits if you like, though they fascinate me, one of which has quite profound implications for mathematics, in that it destroys a central assumption of mathematics, much as the overthrow of Euclidean space did.
In my opinion, there is a point where mathematics as we know it, breaks down, because there is a fundamentally important number, the significance of which has not yet been quite understood.

Mutley- Hmmm. Not seen the cheque yet.

Josh- What's better is what enriches your own life best.
I do go to mass some weeks- I don't go others. Sometimes it may even be because I am busy fornicating, as you put it.
If it is the only chance I have to fornicate with that person, I'd skip Mass for it, rarely if I have other chances.

Wolfie- It all boils down to the fact that ultimately, everything must by explainable as a result of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Your post even had the same title!

Eve- Just acceptable? ;)
Glad you liked the ending- was that the best bit then?

Helen- Ockham's Razor- the simplest explanation is usually the right one.
Ultimately, the universe must be very simple.
One true variable and one true law, would sem to be the ultimate goal of science.
Can either of these really be different to the candidates I have selected here?

Oceanshaman- I believe that it is impossible for a universe to exist that is ultimately incomprehensible.

There is no eternity, in my opinion. How can there be?
Time is a dimension, a way of measuring change in THIS universe.
An ultimately finite one.

Anonymous said...

There does exist an alternative theory about the origin of universe. As – after pretty long and harsh discussions in the scientific world - the Big Bang theory had just been accepted as doctrine, to this alternative theory happened, though, what is no singularity: It was shot down by the opinion leaders on this matter, and thus was not widely discussed, at least not in public.

It’s “Father”: Professor Dr. Wolfgang Priester (1924-2005), renowned Astro-Physicist who f.e. has his merits about the cosmologic constant Lamda (Einstein’s “biggest folly”) which – relabelled by Mike Turner - meanwhile is better known as “dark energy”.

Under the terms of Mr. Priester’s “Big Bounce” theory, according to which - contrary to the Big Bang theory - time and space existed before matter, a creator would have had to act at minus infinite.
In an eternally existing world, a God ergo ought to have filled the space with the ground state of the quantum vacuum, and carried out his act of creation in a bubble of a diameter of 10 to the power of minus 25 centimetres.

I am sure, dear Crushed, reflecting on this for one or two winks of the eye, together we will fast as the wind sweep towards the essential inheritent interior essence which is hidden in the root of the kernel of everything: Omnium.

The Peace of the Night!