Let me start by saying that if Xylene was referring to the Abrahamic God, teh uiniverse has most certainly not existed for an infinite amout of time, which pretty much blows all of your theory out of the water, because God created the universe. Something being created implies that it did not exist prior to creation.
This is why I wanted Xylene to clarify what (s)he was putting forth.
ExPlOrE said:
One, it was created out of nothing (which is impossible by definition) or two, it has existed for an infinite length of 'time' (impossible to conceptualize but cannot be proven wrong). Therefore, its generally accepted that the universe (or system's of universes outlined by M-theory) has been going through eternally repeating cycles of existence whereby any life that evolves out of it necessarily pursues one course of action out of an infinite number of possibilities which have all been pursued infinite times before.
Generally accepted by whom?
Most scientists believe that the universe began at the Big Bang.
ExPlOrE said:
That is, if the universe has always existed, all cause/effect reactions have happened infinite times.
That does not necessarily follow.
ExPlOrE said:
As such, since all life is the reaction of organized energy particles acting on a causal basis, life must have necessarily evolved in every way possible always returning to the same conclusion in the ultimate end (remember, this is not merely 1 billion years....it could be trillions, or trillions of trillions of years before the cycle begins again).
Again, this does not necessarily follow.
An infinite amount of time does not imply that there can be no such thing as a unique event.
In fact, if you consider the universe to be infinite in space as well as time, it seems pretty unlikely this is true.
Can you provide something to back this view up?
ExPlOrE said:
While most agree that evolution doesn't have a transitional plan, but follows random mutations, there is still an overall direction towards complexity.
False.
Evolution may be said to have a overall direction towards efficiency and utility if anything.
This does not necessarily mean more complex.
In fact, it often means less complex.
ExPlOrE said:
Consciousness as we know it has only taken 4 billion years to develope out of a single cell. Therefore, allowing for trillions (at least) of years for evolution until the universe may be unable to support life (and results in a major crunch or expansion), the progress of evolution towards complexity should result in an absolute state.
You lost me.
ExPlOrE said:
That state would seem to be one of absolute adaptation to the environement and universe. Additionally, since intelligence and consciousness are even possible, it should seem that this end state would be one of absolute intelligence and consciousness.
Since legs are possible it should seem that this end state would be one of absolute legs.
See how little sense that makes?
Besides, if this was true, then your whole idea of evolution progressing towards greater complexity is worthless.
If we shed our physical body and retaion only our consciousness, we become LESS complex, no?
Furthermore, our "consciousness and thought" are results of our physical brains.
ExPlOrE said:
Furthermore, since the universe is thought to be made of unimaginably small strings of 1dimensional energy, a state of perfect adaptation might be thought to be one of pure, complementary energy. After all, if all life is an embodiment and representation of the fabric and aspectual shape of the universe, then in real terms we are the universe observing itself.
String theory is unsupportable, untestable wild speculation.