s1eep

The burden of life is greater than the burden of proof, but we haven't worked out the burden of life yet, so the burden of proof is equally equitable. When Phi for All replied "Yes and no", I presume that is what he implied. We use the scientific method to broaden our understanding of life, but we do not comprehend life completely- there is more out there for us to discover. We do not have a theory of everything, yet. How do we simplify life (that which we have found too complex to answer wholly), to smaller parts, as to understand it partially? What allows humans to do this? Why can we understand parts of life and not the whole of life, even though we sustain existence (with the whole of life)? This makes sense, you can find sense in it. I suggest you spend time thinking before you jump to the conclusion that it doesn't make sense. I will not re-write what I mean again, too much wordplay and the message I'm trying to get across will get lost in the differing semantics.

If you don't want to discuss it you don't have to discuss it, and I wasn't planning on explaining my theories (or opinions).

The question of life is too complex to answer correctly, humans understand life part by part trying to form an answer, thus we are subtracting from life (i.e. we take light from a being like the Sun, and then go about understanding light; in this scenario, we have subtracted from the Sun to focus on one part of it. We then use the parts we have understood to build models of whole life.) How are humans able to do this? What allows us to simplify life to smaller parts?

There's nothing else to it other than what I said.

By your logic, "science" is the answer to life's complexities. How do scientists understand life? Do we focus on individual parts? Wouldn't we then be submitting to it's complexity, because it is too complex to answer? How do we understand individual parts of life if the whole of life is too complex for us to understand? Our method(s) works with life, but for what reason is it life-compatible? What allows us to harmonize with this complexity as to subtract from it and focus on individual parts?

That's the not question I asked... I asked 'how do we understand the complexity of life?' I have my own theories as to how we understand it. I asked the question for discussion purposes, I wanted to know the common opinion.

Not if humans can understand it's complexity.

How do we understand the complexity of life?

Is the burden of life greater than the burden of proof?

Can you delete this thread? After spending time on a philosophy forum and discussing this matter, now I look back to this thread I realize what a bunch of word salad it is. I try my hardest to delete it but my efforts have come to no avail. Can a moderator delete it for me?

Is there meaning to life? To answer this question, let’s take a random subject and find out if it has any connotations. For example, the Bald Eagle – does the Bald Eagle have meaning? It had evolved through natural selection; it looks and acts in that way because it was coherent to the nature that it inhabited. Meaning can be found in every aspect of the Bald Eagle, since each part of it had evolved for a specific reason. A Bald Eagle’s wings were used for flight, and over many years they evolved to better suit its lifestyle – therefore, a meaning associated with wings is flight (as well as other things). You could also associate Air with Flight, and thus, the Eagle’s wings would be associated with Air. They are built to withstand a nature, and have direct relations to natural things (i.e. they are formed around Air, they look and feel as if they were formed around Air (or flight)), Things are within other things, a wing is, inter alia, part air, it’s in its form and character, and this sensual truth serves as meaning, sensually. Therefore, life does have meaning, but it’s only relevant to our interests..