[monkeynotes]

Although, natural selection does have a bias toward propagating and persisting information. Since the information is part of the universe I would say some of the universe exhibits intent. Bacteria is part of the life, inanimate matter became life, life is a vehicle of transmitting and persisting information.

To think about 'us' as something other than the universe is a folly. If we care, then part of the universe cares because we are part of the whole.

[TeMPOraL]

Propagating, yes. Persisting? Not necessarily - it depends on selection pressures.

[monkeynotes]

Any selection pressure is there to trial the data and persist the useful data. What is considered 'useful'? Well, that's an existential question that is synonymous to `what's the point to life`. I don't have the answer but there does seem to be an intent in the process.

[TeMPOraL]

I disagree. The process viewed at this level is closed over itself - the only criteria for what's useful is "whatever survives". There's no intent here - natural selection only amplifies the structure of the environment in which it happens.

[vokep]

But thats just it, thats exactly how it is - closed over itself.

The intent comes from the design, decided by the physics of the system. With this physics set, life is possible, and this sort of life can survive. Deeper intent comes through in the form of meaning - it was necessary that as intelligent agents evolved and emerged, that they have understandings of good and bad, happiness and pain. And from those, life lessons which are universal - tied to existence of life in general - emerge. If it is destined that whatever surviving life learns these principles to survive, that seems to give a sort of roadmap for existence, an intention of how its supposed to go.

I like this view as it models the universe in self contained meaningful (includes purpose) way without any supernatural claim. I don't believe it necessarily shuts out any supernatural claim either, if you happen to have such belief. But of course you can simply call the universe or the concept of existence itself 'God', and it does seem quite fitting still.

[TeMPOraL]

> The intent comes from the design, decided by the physics of the system. (...) I like this view as it models the universe in self contained meaningful (includes purpose) way without any supernatural claim.

Where does the design come from then? This question can only have supernatural answers.

> If it is destined that whatever surviving life learns these principles to survive, that seems to give a sort of roadmap for existence, an intention of how its supposed to go.

Why? This view conflicts with pretty much the human-universal underpinning of morality. Nature is brutal, and while humans sometimes commit such acts on their own, they're universally frowned upon and great effort is expended to avoid them. Moreover, we've already freed ourselves from the shackles of biological evolution many thousand of years ago. We're now in the development regime couple of orders of magnitude faster - the progress of science and technology. There's nothing to say we have to, or even should, guide our lives by the patterns we learn from other parts of nature.

[vokep]

Why? Why is math designed such that 2+2=4? It isn't, 2+2= is a ruleset with 4 as the only possible answer. So the space of what will work for the future is finite potentially and is predestined. Given the predestination and exactness of it, I consider it a 'design', but maybe that isn't the best word as it implies supernatural intent. I used it because I do intend an implication of supernatural intent, but sort of the other way around - the design simply is, its just logic, but that logic could be considered to be its own intent. There was no supernatural thing that decided the design, instead the design results in supernatural consequences (everything yknow, existing)

Why is the design so exact, why is there only one? Well, with 2+2=4, + and = and digits are part of a system we already both know and have mentally setup, we've already put design to make it that way. So shouldn't 'someone' have to decide what the first logic is? Well, no, because binary logic is self-evident. I have a hunch that there is a single everything algorithm which is the way that something must always emerge from nothing, but as far as I can tell, any cellular automata that expands infinitely (as opposed to fizzling out) starts exhausting various binary systems and renders out the 'design' of that. A very easy to recognize early emerging and very common design is the Sierpinski triangle. Note that back when Steven Wolfram was first researching into that, he didn't do anything to purposefully design Sierpinski triangles in, they were just there, part of the predestined design.

And yes theres nothing that says we have to live according to nature. Theres nothing saying we have to survive at all. Personally I like living though, and paying attention to other systems in nature and trying to learn lessons, seems to be helpful for making living even better.

[monkeynotes]

> There's nothing to say we have to, or even should, guide our lives by the patterns we learn from other parts of nature.

Whatever you do you will be nature. There is only nature, humans think they are outside of it or in control of nature, but we are part of nature because all there is, is all there is. There are no boundaries of distinction, it's a spectrum that encompasses all. At a fundamental level everything is equal and smooth.