Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to The burden of proof

Not really!
Daniel — (archived)

You are confusing size with significance. Telescopes show us that we are infinitessimally small, yes. However that is not the same as concluding we are insignificant. At this stage I'm not saying we *are* significant - simply showing there is a distinction between tiny & miniscule, and being insignificant. A speck of dust is tiny but can still short out important microelectronics. A single sugar molecule is absolutely miniscule but can be still detected by an ant, which will then use it to find the sugar source. Just 2 simple examples which come to mind.

A thought is not only tiny, but absolutely immaterial - since the neural network we can maybe map for the thought, is only a map, or a scientific analogy, and not the thought itself. The thought itself is subjective, and fleeting - and yet when put into speech or action, can conceivably change the whole environment.

Most of all, you don't "get" that no matter how tiny we are in the face of the Universe, the fact we are conscious and creative beings makes as qualitatively different from all the other inanimate matter out there, which means not just stars and planets and gases, but also Space itself. So: compared to the Universe we are absolutely tiny. But whether this means we are also insignificant - that doesn't necessarily follow at all.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (136 posts)