Rahvin writes:
I suspect that one day life and consciousness will be seen as necessarily emergent (i.e., physical) properties of our universe.
"Common" I could potentially buy. But "
necessarily emergent" is one hell of a
non sequitur.
I don't quite understand why you say it is a non sequitur; perhaps I expressed the idea badly.
Rahvin writes:
Your line of reasoning would seem to validate a falsehood that we regularly attempt to dispel from creationists - that evolution has a "goal" or a hierarchy, and that intelligent life is somehow being "worked toward" by all species.
There are quite a few assumptions to unpack, I suppose: I assume the early/"origin" properties of our universe pretty much dictated our current state, and I assume that both life and intelligence will prove to be common in our universe.
So I think intelligent life is an emergent property of our universe: perhaps "necessarily" was the wrong word, but I meant it to describe a necessary consequence of our starting conditions, not a teleological one: constants and particles that will form stars, stars that will form heavier elements, planetary systems that will at least occasionally occupy Goldilocks zones, and a universe so vast as to guarantee the common occurrence of conscious life and the universal application of evolution which will give rise, given enough time, to intelligent life.
That's just an intuitive leap, a dream speculation if you will, not so much a line of reasoning.
Still, I'd like to know what you think is improbable about it.
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."