My answer to this: Energy has always existed, it cannot be created or destroyed (first law of thermodynamics: the conservation of energy). It just changes form. No consciousness, will, volition is necessary for the universe to exist and behave just as it does; and to insert a god is an unnecessary assumption (Occam's Razor).

@Joanne Who or what decreed the law of thermodynamics?

@WilliamFleming No one decreed it, humans discovered it.

@Fernapple Well then a broader question. Why are things as they are? What does it all mean?

We are existing in this inexplicable, amazing enigmatic reality, consciously aware, yet in nearly total darkness.

@WilliamFleming : Why do you think a who or what is necessary? We call the way nature works "the laws of nature," because things appear to work within certain boundaries and "laws" is just a word we use to explain this. No one had to set these boundaries, it is just the nature of how it works. Again, if you insert a god, how do you explain its existence? How did such a complex being come into existence. It simply is not necessary to give this eternal energy consciousness, will, volition...

@WilliamFleming : Things are as they are because they are as they are. Why does any of it have to have a meaning? We are here because of billions and billions of random events, and natural consequences, that allowed for our planet to form in just the right spot and for our kind of life to evolve on it. And, we evolved to have the ability to ask why are we here and then make up fantastic stories trying to answer that question.

I don't feel any need whatsoever to ask why am I here, as opposed to no one, or a different person, had my mother gotten pregnant a month earlier, or later...or a different sperm made its way to the egg that would become me.

I find beauty in the randomness of it all. And, I do not think we are in total darkness. Science has been able to answer many questions of how; but, it will never answer the "why?" question because there is no "why?" other than because one thing led to another in a procession of natural consequences and random events.

I find meaning for my life without having to think that I was somehow meant to exist, or that humans were somehow meant to exist. And, because life is rare, and random, it is more valuable...at least to me.

@Joanne “I don't feel any need whatsoever to ask why am I here...”

That’s fine for you, but I do feel such a need. I am unable to sit by and blithely ignore the staggering implications of existence and the sheer miraculousness of conscious awareness. To say that it all fell together through a series of random events is a non-answer, is not provable and is only an unscientific opinion or conjecture.

I am not asking about meaning as value. Reality is infinitely valuable by any measure. I am asking what it is about, how are we to understand reality. What is it?

There are no answers to such questions I know. We are in utter darkness and bewilderment, but it is a dazzling darkness after all, thrilling, magnificent, awe-inspiring.

@Joanne I do not insert a God. All I do is express abject bewilderment regarding nature, existence and conscious awareness. Since you appear not to be bewildered please explain it all.

Thanks in advance.

@WilliamFleming That which is wonderful does not have to have meaning.

And why do we think it is wonderful ? Because, just as we evolved eyes to see, noses to smell and ears to hear. So we evolved a sense of beauty, wonder and appreciation to fit exactly the world that we needed to appreciate, this world, that is the deepest meaning.

For imagine if you will, a small creature which has just left the nest made by its parents for the first time. It sets out to find a home of its own, climbes to the top of a hill and sees two valleys before it. Which way does it go ? It chooses the way which seems most beautiful to it, and that choice may well be the most important one it will ever make. Affecting its whole future, its chances of feeding itself, evading those who would feed on it, finding mates and raising its own brood, will all depend on an aesthetic choice. And animals make lots of those choices every day, so that it is certain that your sense of beauty and appreciation are just as vital and as evolved a eyes, teeth and fur.

So that when you appreciate, you tap into something that is age old and was earned for you at great cost, inlives lost and pain. And that is real, scientifically real, if you have that, there is no need for any magical meanings. For....

There are no things could, so much enduring give,
As fragile things, that swiftly die; and live.

Those ageless hosts, who lived and died.
That with nature, might, in us provide.
The fragments of the ancient life and woe,
Which are every feeling, that we know.

Accept then the wisdom of three billion years.
That comes to us with human joys and tears.
As is appreciate, the brightest grace,
Ancient nature gives our human race.

@Fernapple Beautiful poem. IMO everything means something but we are incapable of understanding and appreciating the meaning because we are limited to the sense world. Everything that we experience as bodies is nothing but our own nervous systems. And then there is the phenomenon of conscious awareness, inexplicable but all pervasive.

It would be tempting to believe that we are governed only by those millions of years of evolution—that we are just robotic organisms with no true free will and are at the mercy of random events. Such a belief system provides a pat answer and leaves us feeling in control, as though we understood it all and need not inquire further—need not face the stark and brilliant unknown.

@WilliamFleming : When you asked "who" is responsible...it sure sounds like a god/consciousness of some sort, is being inserted.

Also, I am completely enthralled and fascinated by our universe; and by the wonderful abundance of life on our tiny speck of dust that is floating in a universe that is so vast it is hard to wrap one's mind around it. That we are here and able to ponder this universe, and the possibility of others, and to ask the question "why" is amazing and wonderful.

And, just because I do not feel perplexed and confused (bewildered) at least not in a way that makes me feel the need to ask or know "why," does not mean that I don't wonder about many things.

I wonder what was before the singularity that caused our universe. I wonder if universes are born and die to be recycled becoming another universe etc. I wonder if we will find solid evidence of extraterrestrial life before I die (I sure hope so). I wonder about many things. I simply do not think there is a reason why any of it happened beyond it happening as a natural consequence of eternal energy doing what it does; namely, changing form. Sometimes it takes the form of matter, and sometimes that matter attains sentience and self-awareness and the ability to ponder its existence. And, it is amazing that that happens sometimes.

I love Carl Sagan's quote: "we are a way for the cosmos to know itself." I don't feel the need to ask why I am here, only the need to appreciate that I am; and, that I am one of the ways for our universe to know itself.

@WilliamFleming Yes I agree there is no promise made that we will ever understand the universe, nor is there any reason to believe that our brains, which evolved only to solve the problems of survival on the plains of Africa are capable of doing it. Therefore while sepculation is always interesting, I do think that it is important to never draw conclusions from speculation. So whilst I full agree with your first two paragraphs, I set no store by opinions about consciousness, no mater how esteemed the people, and if they are foolish enough to hold opinions about it, then they are wrongly esteemed. Because if "it seems that all our notions about creation, causation, location, distance etc are meaningless from a cosmic perspective." then so are opinions about them.

@Fernapple I hate to be such a nag but IMO deep conscious awareness is the one thing that can be construed as having meaning on a cosmic scale.

Universal Consciousness:

[scientificamerican.com]

[jcer.com]

[m.huffpost.com]

[google.com]

[bigthink.com]

[ecstadelic.net]?

“Lest the idea of a unitary, group, or universal mind be dismissed as new-age woo-woo, we should note that some of the most distinguished scientists of the 20th century have endorsed this perspective. The renowned physicist David Bohm said, "Each person enfolds something of the spirit of the other in his consciousness. Deep down the consciousness of mankind is one. This is a virtual certainty... and if we don't see this it's because we are blinding ourselves to it." Anthropologist and psychologist Gregory Bateson: "The individual mind is immanent but not only in the body. It is immanent also in the pathways and messages outside the body; and there is a larger Mind of which the individual mind is only a sub-system..." Physicist Henry Margenau: "There is a physical reality that is in essence the same for all... [This] oneness of the all implies the universality of mind... If my conclusions are correct, each individual is part of God or part of the Universal Mind." Nobel physicist Erwin Schrodinger also believed that minds are united and one. He said, "To divide or multiply consciousness is something meaningless. There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousness... [I]n truth there is only one mind." [huffpost.com]

@WilliamFleming I agree that we are limited by our human brains and there are realities that we are unable to perceive; however, when it comes to a universal consciousness of some sort there is no more evidence for that than there is for a god, so I am not drawn to it.

You stated that Erwin Schrodinger "believed" that "minds are united as one." The operative word is "believed." If he had proof, belief would not be necessary. And, just as I have no reason to believe in a god, I have no reason to believe in a universal consciousness. I do not hold anything against those who have such a belief, I simply disagree with them.

@Joanne I was quoting someone else. I agree that belief is not necessary, or even desirable. Scientists don’t usually speak of belief regarding their theories and laws. They are only interested in evidence and logic.

On the other hand, highly intelligent people absolutely love to discuss and speculate about metaphysical ideas. Sometimes those ideas are developed into real science.

James Clerk Maxwell:

“It has been asserted that metaphysical speculation is a thing of the past, and that physical science has extirpated it. The discussion of the categories of existence, however, does not appear to be in danger of coming to an end in our time, and the exercise of speculation continues as fascinating to every fresh mind as it was in the days of Thales.”

@WilliamFleming Sorry but just because it is complicated, and beyond understanding at this time at least, that does not mean that there is something supernatural going on. The god of the gaps argument, holds no more water, if used for a deist god or for supernatural consciouness, than it does if used for a theist god. People may think out loud about things beyond the fringe of science, that's fine, but when they do that, they can not be credited with doing science, or carry with them any authority they gained while in science, exactly because they are speculating beyond its fringes.

@Fernapple Oh, but I never make supernatural claims—there’s no such thing as the supernatural. Whatever is—whatever happens—it is always just an expression of nature. We are in total agreement on that.

However, I personally would put more value on the opinions of people like Planck, Schrodinger, Eddington, Bohm with his implicit order, Wheeler with his participatory universe and Hoffman with conscious realism than I would on opinions of ANY of your new atheists spouting their ridiculous nonsense. Those folks are wearing blindfolds. What they say might not be false, but they are blind to the implications of existence. They attack a straw man.

@WilliamFleming Most of your heros do seem to come from and earlier age, I wonder if they would still hold the same views if they were alive now ? I will leave it at that, because I like you too much to become boring. Regards.

@Fernapple Good question. Thanks. I like you too