Sentient life created the Universe to create a better existence for itself. The proof is everywhere. Life came from before the Big Bang and built the Big Bang after billions of steps that turned the light bulb on. The Big Bang expanded and grew based on the energy life needed for the Big Bang to expand that created a womb for life to then consume energy and grow and expand in. Life then came out of the caves and expanded and grew in its knowledge and intelligence to create buildings, roads, currency and rocket ships.
Life is now at the point where it needs more energy and expanding into space and colonizing planets will increase that growth rate as energy is consumed and the human process continues to expand into the womb of the Universe.
Minerals and rocks and electrons have no need to consume energy or grow and expand as they lack the thought processes necessary. Life on the other hand directed the Quantum to mass together to expand into the Big Bang that allowed life to leave the womb of the Quantum and emerge into the state of Relativity.
There is no other need for a Universe to exist other than provide the foundation for life from the Quantum State to exist in the Relativity state.
Only a sentient thought process would be able to create the energy need for itself to grow and expand from something into something else.
You ask why, but to ask why is only what we humans do. The universe for all we know isn’t a life form with a thinking mind and an agenda. For all we know the universe just is. And since no place on Earth is the same, no sun or galaxy in the universe is the same, does it seem only right to believe in a universe where all larger things only exist once.
This doesn’t exclude life on other planets of course and we may be able to find perhaps bacteria on other planets. But to find bacteria just like we have on Earth may already be impossible. And to find something which resembles us humans seems only more unlikely each time we make a new discovery on how life on Earth came to existence.
I’d say finding live as we know it, can go either way. To find none other at all, or to find it perhaps a few times within every galaxy. I only find the later far far too optimistic - a dream. Just like people once believed there could be life on Mars and Venus are we now smarter and know there isn’t any, but we still hold the same optimism that there has got to be more life out there, while we really might only be setting ourselves up for further disappointments.
Nothing ever “Just Is.” Humans should never be satisfied with excepting something without knowing or wanting to know more.
The thing about my theory is this. If life didn’t create the Big Bang for its own purpose then why does Life have the same need to consume energy and then convert that energy into growth and expansion like the Big Bang suddenly consumed energy and then expanded?
Numerous theories suggest that Life came after the Big Bang. But if that is true then when did life get the blue print from to consume energy to then expand from microscopic cells into a fetus and then into a full grown adult human?
The same can be seen with all aspects of life on Earth and not just humans. Everything that is life starts out thousands of times smaller than its final growth rate. The Universe also started out very small and grew or expanded to thousands of times its original size.
Life wouldn’t have had any knowledge to consume energy and then grow or expand if it hadn’t been part of the actual process of creating the Big Bang. Life wouldn’t exist if it hadn’t been present before the Big Bang. Life wouldn’t have known how to consume energy to then expand and grow from.
If Life came after the Big Bang then how did Life communicate with the Universe to come to an understanding that by consuming energy meant that the life form could grow and expand?
Many parents plan to have children, but some don’t. Ergo do we have people on this planet who were never a part of anyone’s plan and yet they exist. They simply are here.
Any sandcorn on a beach then just is. It doesn’t ask where it came from or what it’s going to be. Only we humans can ask such questions, because we have an understanding of time. As far as we know does very little else posses this ability.
I say “very little else”, because i.e. a beaver will likely have some concept of time or it wouldn’t be able to recognize how a damn comes into existence as it obviously takes time for water to build up. It may only not think in terms of “hands on a clock”, but it will more likely perceive time in terms of a rising water level.
Many life forms then have a biological clock, called the circadian clock, which is synchronized to the day-night cycle. This clock exists even in insects and bacteria.
But for all we know is a sandcorn just a sandcorn and exists without a purpose. It’s just a tiny rock.
Just my 0.2 Isk here, starting to deeply ponder why we are here and the purpose of the universe. Is known to cause deep introspectivety and in some cases mental illness. Known side effects are excommunication, starting of cults and/or religions. In some severe cases wars and genocide, it’s highly recommended to just scratch the surface or ingest universal purpose in small doses…
Even more universal than making trascendent questions, is to buy answers to them and/or have them pre-answered before you can even think about asking them.
Exposure to multiple answers and the mundane consequences of them (people with answers get privileges) is a healthy way to approach the issue.
“Why?”
“Divinity!”
“Oh!”
“BTW, Divinity also says you pay me and obey me”
“Why?”
“Escape death… or die”
“Sounds pretty convincing…”
Barnard’s Star is a very low mass red dwarf star. The chances of life as we know it existing there is slim to none. The chances of a civilisation that close to us (~6ly) without our knowledge is also pretty slim. The chances that anyone on earth knows about a civilisation there is exactly 0.
One aspect for determining if a solar system has life in it can be compared to the magnetic field of the sun in the system.
A sun with a weak or negligible magnetic field will not create enough pressure on a planet in the habitable zone that along with the activity of the planets core ,which needs to be similar to Earth’s, would not be too generate an ozone layer to protect life from the harmful radiation of the sun.
A sun that has too strong of a magnetic field would simply over power the potential habitable planets own magnetic field making it impossible for an ozone layer to remain consistent around the planet.
Cults are only started because of wealth rather not having any. Someone really pondering the existence of the Universe could care less about “in the moment wealth” which is the reason why cults exist.
A determination of the syndrome made by someone with a PH.d in the area of psychology.
It seems that increasingly often you hear hear the phrase, “it is what it is”. I was taking the phrase to mean, “It’s not this and it’s not that; it’s something more subtle that I don’t have a name for, and I’m ok with that”. In other words I took it to be an indication that the speaker is letting the thing thing just exist in all its rich uniqueness without having to categorize it or analyse it.
Without having to analyze it means that the person knows exactly what reality is which is not possible without analyzing the unknown.
I mean few things by that. Without or with analyzing it is what it is, like in - you just cant change it or know to full extend what it is, but it will stay itself, despite you for example thinking about time in categories of positions or some fourth dimension. Also that its laws would not change without or with life.
There is no such state as something not being able to be changed. Everything in the Universe has a molecular state that can be changed from a solid to a gas to a plasma or a liquid, therefore there is no such thing as “It is what it is” based not being able to change the something.
If you are referring to human thoughts the only time that someone uses “It is what it is” is when they want to change the persons thinking patterns in every detail into their own thinking patterns which always converts to Narcissism or dying because you took too long staring at your own reflection.
If you don’t know what something is then you explore it. For example exploring the reason why the sun sets.
People used to say that the sun sets because it does which is the same thing as it is what it is. Science on the other hand has determined the reason and why the sun sets.
The reason the sun sets is that if the Earth was tidally locked in orbit around the sun life wouldn’t exist because the sun would continually bake the plant life and would not allow plant life time to recover from the excessive heat that the plant would encounter.
I have done experiments before where I kept plants in a closet and in the window of an apartment.
The plants in the closet had light shining on them for 14 hours a day and longer. They grew tall but did not bush out like the same plants in the window did.
So in order for the plants to bear fruit the Earth has to have two cycles, night and day where the night time would allow the ground the vent the stored up heat that then cooled down the area down. To much heat and plants won’t bear fruit or very small amounts of fruit. To little heat and plants won’t bear fruit or very small amounts of fruit.
“It is what it is” doesn’t mean quite what she thinks it means. It will have a slightly different meaning to everyone, but Psychology Today only tries to generalize and popularize psychology without being actually helpful. Take yourself as example. You only ended up quoting the article without having adopted the phrase yourself, have you?
I use the phrase to state that I have accepted a circumstance, after I have learned some more about it and when my previous view was wrong or incomplete. When in the past I thought of something to only have a negative aspect, for example guns. I could have said they’re entirely designed to be killing instruments. When one is young then one often only sees one side of something. One polarizes and judges it as either good or bad. But by looking at how guns are being used, to protect life, is there a completely different side to them. So I have accepted guns as a means to an end. It is what it is. Or sometimes I would say it’s the lesser of two evils.
There is no great psychological mystery around it’s use. It’s a phrase, and that’s what it is.
As we used to say in Waco, Texas, “The farther away from Waco you get, the more intelligence there is. Therefore, somewhere really far away in the universe, there must be some really intelligent life.”
