Yoseph

Yes! Well that settles most of the calculation... Except that it it's using 150,000 generations for the calculation which is presumably the number of generations as a human... So that's that section done. I mean I'm happy with that estimate anyway, it would probably become meaningless and inaccurate to calculate it any further.

Hello! I was wondering if anyone was interested in helping me calculate the probability of being alive as a human. In other words, the probability of you or I being here. For example to start things off it was a one in 300 million (on average) chance that the combination of the sperm and egg involved in your conception grew into you. However most couples attempt to conceive several times until they are successful and may have several kids. So the first thing we need is the chance of you arising from any two people based on the current population (or the population at your birth). We then need a probability of your parents meeting based on the population and in turn a probability of them being born at all, calculated the same way as before but with a respectively smaller population. This calculation I think could be looped back in sections and the probability of each generation multiplied together to get a (very very (very)) small probability. The reason I was posting this here is I think the experts here in evolution will be able to point out certain sections (time periods) where the probability changes. For example before humans the animals will have different mating habits and populations which will affect the calculation. If anyone can fill in any gaps anywhere or contribute any information which will help the calculation that would be much appreciated. Alternatively if you think this is a stupid waste of time or incalculable for any reason I'd prefer you stop me now by letting me know why! Peace.

Hey guys, I have read and heard a lot about astronomy but I recently realised there's something about the basics I don't quite understand. For us to be seeing galaxies that formed in a comparatively short time after the big bang, how did we get so far away? Would we not have had to travel at near light speeds so that the light from these galaxies now has to catch us up as it were? In fact, would we not have had to travel faster than the speed of light, otherwise the light would have gone past us as the universe expanded? As you can see I'm confused, any help?

If the many-worlds interpretation is true it does throw into question where your consciousness ends. You'd surely only ever find yourself in a "world" where you haven't died yet right? I've been wondering about this for years. My first thought was that I could test the theory by playing Russian roulette. After 100 clicks and no bangs you've surely proved the theory correct? Either that or you're just incredibly lucky... How many clicks would it take until you were sure? How many dead versions of yourself are you leaving your relatives to deal with in the other worlds?

I'm always trying to reconcile consciousness and physics. This is a thought experiment that scrutinises the relationship between our experience of the universe and the idea that consciousness is just neurons firing in a predicatable way due to their position in space (and their connection to each other). Disclaimer: I don't know if this is an old thought experiment or if it just sounds naive and stupid, I am here to discuss the idea and make some progress with what to me seems like a bit of a conundrum. Imagine we create a replicator. With the recent advances of 3D printing it's not completely implausable to think that we might one day have a device that could scan an object of immense complexity and map it atom to atom in a new place. You guessed it, we're replicating a human. This human is you. (Please let's not get into the plausibility of creating such advanced technology) We replicate you atom for atom so that your brain, neurons, neuron relationships are absolutely identical. We atomise you so that you're completely destroyed. Where this new human is standing, are you behind his/her eyes? Are you inside their head, like you are inside your head now? If every neuron was mapped correctly they should surely have all your memories, mannerisms and thought patterns. If no, are you saying that consciousness is not connected to matter and exists in some higher realm? If yes, the experiment continues... We do the exact same thing again but we don't atomise the original "you". There are now two copies of you with the exact same experience up until this moment in time. Which one of them do you experience the world through? Who's experiencing the world through the one that isn't you? My musings on the last questions have pulled up some interesting (slightly crazy ideas). At first you would of course have to experience only one of the people's lives. Which one could be decided randomly, similar to the double slit experiment with particles; when you take the measurement the particle appears in one place despite the pattern inferring that it's in two places at the same time. Now I see there being two possibilities: 1. You live out your life as the one you landed with and when you die your consciousness "jumps" back in time to the moment you split and you then get to experience the life as the other copy. 2. As in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics you just live the life you landed in and then die. I hope you find the experiment interesting and don't berrate me for it's whimsicality. Any thoughts, insights, comments appreciated. As mentioned at the beginning, my true goal is to find a theory which nicely encapsualtes physics with consciousness. Any further readings/thought experiements which might help me with this are much appreciated.

Tar, I like your philosophy, I hadn't thought about that perspective in much depth before. Ironically in terms of this thread you've mentioned an ideology that might be easier to come across (whilst musing about life) when on drugs. I'm not saying you have found those beliefs this way, but drugs let you see things from a different perspective from time to time, and if you are constantly challeging your philosophy with the use of drugs, you are more likely to come up with a new perspective (such as the reality you are talking about) rather than if you stuck to your routine of normal living.

I made a second account a while ago and only have close friends on it, I only use it now and have kind of left the old one hanging around just in case. The benefits are is that you're actually interested in most of the stuff that appears and there's far less BS from people you don't care about. You also feel like people are going to understand your statuses more and are less bothered about what you write.

The world (humanity) only has a meaning if you believe it does. It doesn't have a meaning in the eyes of the universe, again, unless you believe in a sentient God who's watching us and cares about what we do. Either way, it requires you to make up a belief. There is no testable purpose of humanity so you may as well make up what ever meaning you like with or without the help of drugs. Sure we all have our roles: doctors, street cleaners etc. but as a sum total, we are not working towards any divine end goal, we are just existing. To go back to Alan Watts, life is just a song and you're just meant to dance while the music is being played.

Something taking an infinite amount of time to happen seems like an illogical statement to me (maybe I'm wrong). I'm stating the odds are 1 in an extremely high number, but if we have an infinite amount of time, then it will eventually happen. Let's change the argument... we have decided that it is possible that we have an infinite amount of time. Assuming we do, is conciousnes just tied to your brain structure/workings? Will we each experience conciousness again a long long (very very long) time from now?

But does that mean it can happen again??

tar, I was merely saying that how long ago someone dies doesn't invalid their opinion on ANY subject. In response to what you last said, I would make a few points. Drugs don't "short circuit" the brain, they change the way it operates. They change what it focuses on, what it's interested in, how it perceives stimuli. I do agree that they don't provide any new logical insight into a "meaning for humanity" which seems to be what you're referring to when you're talking about "the rest of us". I would also say that there is no "meaning for humanity" unless you believe in god, so that's kind of irrelevant. Supposing that "the meaning of life" is completely subjective and different for each person I'm sure psychoactive drugs can provide insight into it. For example, some people who suffer from depression believe that they lack the capacity to be happy. Mushrooms have successfully been used to treat some of these people by giving them hope and seeing the world from another perspective. Read more about that here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushroom#As_medicine). Marajuana can do similar things, as well as being effective pain relief and motivator (in small amounts). You only have to look towards the Arts if you want examples of drugs as inspiration. And if you're going to mock meditation, there are millions of people that can vouch for that giving meaning to their lives. Drug addiciton wasn't in the topic but I agree, some people let the drugs become their meaning of life and end up miserable and lonely. Happiness will always be a fleeting feeling, but drugs can and do help people on their path towards being a balanced person but unfortunately they don't help everyone. In small amounts, used from time to time, I believe psychoactive drugs can be beneficial in bringing meaning to people's lives.

From what I've heard we have actually evolved to notice the differences between each other more acutely than those of animals as a means of determining friend or foe and building a social structure. I vaguely remember seeing an experiment in a documentary that suggests that babies recognise the differene between animals just as well as between humans. I also remember hearing this, and have thankfully found evidence that I didn't just imagine it on wikipedia: "There is about 2–3 times more genetic diversity within the wild chimpanzee population on a single hillside in Gombe, than in the entire human gene pool.[121][122][123][124]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Ok so let's rephrase it to "Anything that has already happened could happen again". Your pendulum example only holds true if no external energy is inputted, which the universe has plenty of. Because of entropy we know this energy will eventually dissappate, but is it foolish to assume the universe will eventually be reborn, if not a different universe created. If the universe ceases to exist don't we have the following principal? I guess the idea relies on either a multiverse, or this universe to be reborn. The counter argument being this is the only universe and will eventually become dull and empty and remain that way forever. Which leaves the big question of it's origin open.

There is no premise, only a question. So you're saying you don't think there is an infinite amount of time?

I made a post about this a few years ago (I think it's been deleted now), but never really resolved the argument. Well the first question is in the title... and for debating purposes, my standpoint on the answer is yes. If it takes until the end of this universe, or the creation of 10^10^10^10 universes later, anything which is at least physically possible in our current universe is possible. The "therefore" is about conciousness and reincarnation... If conciousness is nothing more than a sort of emergent phenomenon based on the configuration of particles and therefore workings that make up your brain then there is no reason that this configuration couldn't happen again, no matter how remote the chances. If you argue that conciousness is not to do with the brain, you are saying that it is somewhat supernatural, and exists outside the realm of physics...?