Dark Matter wrote:Greta wrote:What was the molecular cloud from supernovae that became the stellar nursery that formed the Sun? Sheer chaos. The organising principle in this instance is gravity. The larger an entity, the more it attracts, and the bigger it gets until it reaches a size threshold, and from there it either dissipates or develops in terms of order rather than size. This is as true for proto stars as it is for people, suckling piglets and companies - basically "the rich get richer".
So, within a chaotic cloud of gas, logically some areas will be more concentrated and hotter than others. They will attract more material than cooler, less concentrated areas. In time, the chaos forms particulates based on earlier zones of concentration. Order. The process then continues. This is the story of the universe that we see in the CMB.
Of course, you want the underlying why, though, and the above won't satisfy.
Quite right. The highlighted is why. Stephen Hawking was severely criticized for making the same observation in his book
A Brief History of Time.
Finding causes prior to the BB is an issue. Namely, we don't know about it. We might suppose various possibilities, but they are still suppositions. You assume that there must be a conscious agent rather than a chaotic fluctuation providing a first cause. Then again, maybe reality is structured so that the idea of "first cause" makes no sense, but we are too locked into our perceptual limits to ever understand.
Whatever, in nature I constantly see things developing over time, gradually gaining attributes that were once potentials (emergence). Any attribute that acts to help an entity persevere will necessarily become more common over time. Given the fractal nature of reality, it's very possible that universe generally operates similarly. It might not, if what we think of as "the universe" is a closed system. If it's part of a multiverse, then it may just be one more fractal layer of reality.
Dark Matter wrote:The furthest I'll go into the kind of non orthodoxy that you're looking for is that I see the universe as a living entity. It's not illogical to see the universe as full of dead things with a little oasis of life here on Earth and maybe elsewhere, but there are other valid perspectives. People can refer to "dead rocks", but many of our innards could be considered dead in themselves but form parts of living systems.
By whom. or what? And how does it stand in relation the the Absolute?
Maybe it is The Absolute? A total living entity filled with smaller things, gradually maturing.
Dark Matter wrote:Instinctive drive, in and of itself, is not meaningfulness.
It is to the one feeling the drives.
Dark Matter wrote:Until he or she takes an honest look at them. [Peggy Lee - Is That All There Is video]
Yet all roads lead to the same place. "If that's all there is" then, sings Peggy, let's simply enjoy life as hedonists.
However, Epicurus realised that short term pleasures did not necessarily being longer term happiness. As he looked ever more long term, hedonism in its highest form brings one to similar asceticism and morality as theistic traditions, sans the cultural fetishes regarding women, gays, life and death.
Also, as a eusocial species, diversity is essential. If everyone lived deeply examined lives then not much would get done while doing all that examining. Some people need to simply go for it in life - that's how they will best fulfil their potentials with their particular gifts and limits - yet they still can find life compellingly meaningful in their relationships. We all suffer and experience joy to some extent, and those states are more or less the baseline of meaning.
Dark Matter wrote:How does “I don’t know” accomplish that?
By opening the door to learning.
Dark Matter wrote:What kind of "learning"? Quantitative or qualitative? The learning of mere facts or how to be at home in and with the universe?
We learn things that interesting and useful to us. Humans, like bacteria and some fungi are an exploratory species, not only physically, but mentally, emotionally, spiritually, creatively etc.
I wouldn't worry about humans learning in an uneven manner and at times arguably not "seeing the forest for the trees" because growth is never even. Humanity, with its burgeoning technological prowess and slowed moral progress, is akin to a teenage lad having a growth spurt, clumsy, gangly and lacking poise until be accustoms himself to his more mature form and fills it out (the analogy here is that the new technological "body" of humanity is yet to be filled with the "body" of matured morality).