Does evolution have a purpose?
-If yes what is it?
-If no, why not?
One day I was looking at the periodic table -and realized it looked like a set of toy blocks.
These extremely complex "element" blocks came into existence by being arranged from that which already existed
(but we rarely try to look back beyond/before the initiation of the physical universe or consider that the universe might not be "everything" /the characteristics of the most basic "stuff" -the most basic blocks -which eventually became arranged as our universe -but perhaps something else before that)
Then these blocks self-assembled first into innumerable planets (relatively isolated/closed environments) -upon which they continued to self-assemble into a potentially-infinite variety of life forms -which tended toward increased mastery of environment (mastery of the blocks from which they and all else self-assembled) -and which increased in enjoyment or displeasure of environment, depending upon how the environment was in order or in disorder.
From these blocks the masters of environment can produce an extreme number of intended characteristics/properties and arrange them into countless configurations -by combining the blocks in various ways.
These life forms also tend toward the ability and desire to leave their isolated environments and explore the others.... including the countless differing worlds... upon which the potentially-infinite variety of life forms may already reside.......
so they can do really cool stuff wherever they go and also just be filled with awe...
but they have to learn to not mess up or blow up everything first.... so it's a good thing they begin in isolated environments.
Yah -that all took some forethought.
Some believe that "thought" requires the physical universe to first exist, but that the physical universe did not require thought to first exist.
That is what is apparent if only the physical universe which self-assembled is considered back to its specific initiation.
It is true that everything which exists must have initially self-assembled (Even God could not be responsible for his own initial existence or awareness) -but what would it assemble into first -next, etc.?
Would thought and self-awareness have self-assembled first? Would such an extremely complex environment as our universe self-assembled first?
Thought and self-awareness are the mechanisms by which any blocks may go beyond self-assembly -so must logically self-assemble "first" -but would also become increasingly able step-by-step as self and environment became more distinct and complex.
So... is the entire physical universe specifically the initial "self-assembly" from greatest possible simplicity -and we are the first mechanisms to move it beyond self-assembly???....
or was such a mechanism required to move greatest possible simplicity to become specifically the universe?
Did thought require the periodic table -or did the periodic table require thought?
Did the extremely complex and specific blocks require such a mechanism to arrange them from the most simple blocks? One might say the mechanism was the big bang, but the singularity must have already been as complex as necessary to specifically become the elements and all else -which is therefore not indicative of simplicity. The big bang was the
execution of the product of the mechanism which caused the singularity (brought simplicity to that point -which was specific enough to become the universe specifically.
As anything happening differently when the singularity executed would have resulted in a different universe -if one at all -then the singularity/big bang would have been complex -like a specific sort of seed -rather than simplicity -to the degree that it could transform that which was into that which is -specifically.
It required that much information
in order to specify to that degree.
The specifics of the universe -not only form, but function -would also indicate the nature of that by which it became essentially packaged and executed.
Some have said not to underestimate that of which "nature" without "self" is capable, but "self" is that which makes nature capable. It is REQUIRED between what is possible without it -and with it. It must first self-assemble in order to allow for more complex and purposeful (suited to self) arrangements by making changes nature alone could not -by knowledgeable alteration.
(An example on our level.... A river will take its presently-natural course one way or another until is sensed, stored in memory, diverted in memory/model according to intent -and that intent is then applied to divert the actual river -which can be in a way nature would and could never have accomplished without a self being involved)
As there is no actual difference between "self" (self-aware and environment-aware processor/manipulator) and environment -only logical separation and arrangement..... would "self" and environment initially develop interdependently in tandem -or would one be initially extremely augmented?
Must the overall initial simple environment have/have also become a simple yet increasingly complex self -thereby becoming able to continue more complex arrangement -as a self is a necessary arranger past initial self-assembly... as
increasingly able?
One difference between such a self and our own selves is that such a self would have increasing input into its own arrangement -and that of its environment (initially both simple and not separate).
We have zero input into our selves until we awaken into already-extremely-complex and -capable bodies -and assume there never was any sort of "input" to cause that specific output.
