Ivan, Everyone,

I Think the TOE 3 thread is again growing too large, so perhaps we can continue here.

Back to the Basics and Beyond

For a TOE to be reasonable the perimeters for it must also be reasonable; therefore, for a TOE to function properly, and be understandable, it must be formulated for the system it necessarily encompasses. Primarily before we can establish a TOE, which will withstand every challenge, one fact must be solidified: Is the universe Deterministic? Offhand, this should be readily apparent to everyone with a bit of common sense, and based on factors that are irrefutable.

1 – The universe exists

2 – Life exists

Enter the argument of Free Will – does Free Will exist in the universe? Yes, but only for conscious living entities; therefore, free will is not an option for non-living entities in the universe. If free will is not an option for non-living entities, free will is restricted to that, of which, possesses life.

3 – We had no choice to make concerning existence of the universe

4 – We had no choice to make concerning the existence of life

The first and second laws of thermodynamics prove the universe is deterministic, and that the universe functions as determined by factors that may, or may not be discovered by the human scientific enterprise. A closed system cannot create itself. An open system cannot be deterministic. This gives us two options to work with.

5 – The universe was created

6 – The universe has always existed

If the universe is deterministic, and I propose that it is, the universe could not have been created, which leaves us with the sixth option, the universe has always existed.

7 – Life was created

8 – Life has always existed

If life is deterministic, and I propose it is, life cannot be created; therefore, life has always existed, the eighth option.

There are eight postulates listed. Of the eight, at most six are true, with at least two of the postulates necessarily being false. This argument removes the First Cause debate, which must necessarily be answered by those people selecting options Five and Seven. I do not think it potentially humanly possible to prove “creation” of the universe, or life, without a cause of it being fully explained.

What say everyone?

Claude

IT ALWAYS WAS, IS, AND WILL BE.

Hi Claude,

Regarding 6th postulate above: "The universe has always existed," followed by:

"If the universe is deterministic, and I propose that it is, the universe could not have been created, which leaves us with the sixth option, the universe has always existed."

The main reason why philosophic/scientific theories of existence postulate that the universe, and life, were "created", other than Biblical sources, is that there appears to be a continuity in existence of birth and death. Also there is evidence of a progression of change. The dinosaurs are no longer with us, but even the new life forms are continuously under pressure to change and adapt, hence evolve or perish. So there does seem to be that as an a priori determinism at work in reality. We live in a universe that forces change on us, that determines in its totality that we must change, and hence conclude from this that some form of progression is at work. Even the planets and solar system, galaxies, all had some more primitive origin, some point in time where they either existed in a very primordial form such as plasma, or not at all. So taking this as an infinite regression, we come to conclude that there had to have been an origin at some time, at some place, that started this whole process of progression. Now we even postulate regression, as the so called Big Bang collapses into a Big Bust. This comes of necessity as a product of progressive change.

However, is this truly justified? Can we assume from our observations that the universe, and life, were "created" because of progressive change? I do not think so. It is more reasonable to do so, but it may be more true that they were not created but existed as a part of the universe in perpetuity, as a basic fundamental element of all that is, and always had been. Then, under conditions we may never know, existence and life began to manifest their potentials, and thus materialize into being. The ancient molusks that once ruled the seas, and are still with us, have always been there in their potential form when still no more than single celled bacteria brought to Earth by comets. And these molusks will still be with us after their species had died off, or metamorphosed into beautiful humanoid intelligent beings 3 billion years hence (to take our place!), to remain part of existence's continuum. And somewhere in this vast cauldron of light stretched over trillions of light years, there will be once again humanoid mammalian beings looking up at the stars while sitting by a fire, and wondering what does it all mean?

In essence, I think Life has always existed, but it manifests differently at different times. And thus, with this reasoning, life and death are dual sides of each other, though we can only guess at what the death side looks like, which we do in all our religions. And by extension, the universe has always existed, though it manifests differently at points in time and space. So the word "created" must be taken in context, that yes there is a point in time where the first human can be called human, and thus created. But no, he has always existed in the potential of life. And Life itself has always existed of necessity as a fundamental part of how our universe is constructed. Like zero and infinity, they have no beginning and no end, and yet they exist.

Then the question remains: Who did this?

"Who", that is the operative word in a true Theory of Everything. We in the end, I believe, come back to Who. This Who is materialized as being, a body, a mind, and alive. This Who is a fundamental part of who we are, and of all existence.

Ivan

Everyone!

Think about it. Which is more reasonable? That
time is a variable function, as per Relativity?
Or that gravity is a variable function, as per TOE
above?

I'll take my chances and put my bet on time is
constant, and gravity is a "variable" constant.
I think this is reality.

Ivan

THE SPEED OF LIGHT PARADOX
(edited)

There is a common belief in physics that light is of a constant speed for all observers, regardless of their velocity. This of necessity leads to a paradox.

(I am hitchhiking off of Kristos A. Tsolkas's paper, "The Theory of Relativity", where he shows how three experiments prove that light speed is not a constant, referred to me by my friend J___. See: http://www.tsolkas.gr/english/document1/document1.html ) However, it is more fundamental than that, and does not have to relate to the Theory of Relativity. Rather, a constant light speed is merely a Paradox.

It stands to reason that if light speed is used to measure distance, as in fact it is with laser light, then of necessity it cannot be of equal velocity for all observers. Here is why: If one observer, stationary, at a given distance measures the time for light to reflect back to its laser origin, he will calculate distance by the time it took. But another observer, taking exactly the same measurement at the same time while in motion, will calculate the time light took from the laser source to the reflector and back, and calculate the distance. And the distance will be different. This will be a very small variable, but the measurement is of necessity different for both observers, if light is to accurately measure distance. Why? Because the distance for the stationary observer remained constant, but the distance for the observer in motion was not, for the distance had changed. (Whether the observer in motion traveled towards the reflector which bounced back the laser light, or away from it, has the same problem: the distance is different.) And if the distance is different, then the moving observer's measurement must read a shorter, or greater, distance than registered for the stationary observer. This means the light traveled either slower, or faster, to give a distance reading for both observers at the same time, because the distances were different. (For the observer moving towards the reflector, light was faster, or blueshifted; for the one receding, light was slower, or redshifted.) But this cannot be if light is a constant speed regardless of velocity, for the two must be the same! The velocity of one observer versus the other should have no effect on the readings; but of necessity it does. What to do?

One has to inpute a time difference between readings, thus concluding that rather than the readings taking place at the same time (which in fact they did not), it becomes necessary to calculate that they were taken at either some nanosecond sooner or later, for the moving observer, than for the stationary observer. And I suspect this is what Einstein did: He fudged time, and said that it is a fabric of space, so that the two readings were at the same time, but in different places, which results in a mathematical fiction. Why? Because in that instant of time difference, space moved to accommodate the time difference, which is a notion I find absurd. Time did not move space to keep the light speed constant. Thus we are left with the "Light Speed Paradox". And if the distance is different for both observers, then the light speed is of necessity different for them, for a different distance was measured at the same time.

Because laser light is used successfully to measure distance, this paradox is of necessity, proving that light cannot be constant for all observers all the time.

Ivan

(Ps: This was a "brainstorm" while driving into the sunset through beautiful valleys after hiking with my two wolf-dogs on the Los Coyotes Indian Reservation, Warner Springs, CA. It must have been the sun in my eyes!)

S.O.L. PARADOX (continued):

There is a way this paradox can be resolved, and that is by saying each light quantum released by either observers become independent of the source once they are released. If so, then the moving observer is now either moving with the light quantum, if moving towards the reflector target, or away from the light quantum, if moving away from the target. But the result is still the same, where the reading for one observer will be fixed by the distance, while the reading of distance for the other observer will be adjusted by the motion. Because of motion, the time it took for the light to reach the observer in motion is different from the time it took to reach the stationary observer. Thus it cannot be said the readings were taken at the same time.

Ivan

(Ps: Then again, maybe I've been staring into the sun too long, so that the light has blinded my reason! Any problems with above that anyone can detect?)

Ivan,

I agree with one concept – light is not a constant. I disagree that time should enter into the equation. Time is the culprit of modern physics and the sole reason for the position established by QM in that, "The more precisely the POSITION is determined, the less precisely the MOMENTUM is known"; the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle proves a fact that physicists will never overcome – there is but one reference frame, which in all regards nullifies the concept, the speed of light is constant. That one reference frame is NOW, of which the inescapable fact is, when light sent from point A to point B, light is forever and always, in the reference frame NOW – it is never in the past, it cannot be in the future.

Newton was mostly right –

"Absolute, true and mathematical time, in itself, and from its own nature, flows equally, without relation to any thing external; and by other name called Duration. Relative, apparent, and vulgar time, is some sensible and external measure of duration by motion, whether accurate or unequable, which is commonly used instead of true time; as an hour, a day, a month, a year. It may be, that there is no equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured. All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the flowing of absolute time is liable to no change."

Space and time were construed as featureless objects, which serves us as a universal and preferred reference frame. A consequence of this is that a given distance will be agreed upon by any two observers at rest with respect to one another, and if in uniform relative motion. After all, they are just measuring the separation between two immovable points in eternal (infinite) space. In the same way an interval of duration will be agreed upon by any two observers for they are simply marking two notches on eternal (infinite) duration.

The flaw in Einstein’s reasoning was, he tried to “make” time (duration) fit theory, but if time is “featureless” there is nothing to fit within a theory. The same applies to space; if space is “featureless” there is nothing to fit within a theory.

Light cannot be a constant – unless we live in a totally static universe, which I propose is a preposterous conclusion; whence, we can prove using existing instrumentation, at best, a maximum potential theoretical light speed is C = 299,792,458 meters per second, and 1,079,252,848,800 kilometers per hour, which is 670,616,629,384.3951 miles per hour.

Here, to make sense of what must be accomplished to make sense of what actually occurs in the universe, we have no options but to include time as a factor, yet within a contextual and meaningful definition, of which, distinguishes the fact, human reasoning is the arbiter of measuring duration, and duration is the measurement of expended motion. That means Time is an artificially constructed phenomenon that plays no role whatsoever in affairs of the universe, and time cannot have any effect on anything in the universe. In the universe there is but one reference frame NOW, and, at every place in the universe it is NOW, and it has always been this way.

Because of this, absolute time, the global notion of past, present and future is the same in all reference frames. If two events are simultaneous in one particular reference frame, this means events are simultaneous in all reference frames, which allows us to rationalize that a unique separation between past and future events is real, which is strictly a function that occurs in the human mind because we have a memory system in that, of which, we record events as they occur, meaning we conceptually retain event artifacts within knowledge.

Past – Present – Future

Within structuring of Galilean space-time faster-than-light speeds are potentially possible in theory; however, electromagnetic waves are limited not to exceed the speed of light c, which depends on the direction of the light signal, and the reference frame from which it is measured. The speed of light can only be constant in the absolute space-time frame of which, we shall call the Newton rest frame, but necessarily an observer cannot be in two differing frames simultaneously, which fact is thoroughly and definitively proven by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Within the structure of Minkowski space-time, there is no absolute time that is physically meaningful to us, logically. It was necessary that Einstein redefine simultaneity if it were to prove the concept of Minkowski space-time as meaningful (viable), especially because all experimental tests to determine exact motion with respect to some absolute space-time frame had failed. So Einstein decided to fully abandon the notion of absolute time. In the Theory of Relativity Einstein postulated two principles which should hold for all physics:

1) All physical laws appear according to the same laws in all reference frames.

2) The speed of light is constant in all reference frames.

The first postulate appears to be well established by observation and experiments, but the second postulate is only an assumption. It suggests in contrast to Galilean space-time that simultaneity is not an absolute physical quality but it is a relative one, which is dependent on the motion of the observer, i.e., a reference frame. Here it must be noted, the existence of a physical absolute time (an equivalent reference frame) has not be established by any experiments, neither has the theory of special relativity disproved it either.

The Galilean concept of space-time is reasonable and realistic; the concept of Minkowski space-time is illogical and unrealistic.

The bottom line is we have no methods to determine what the maximum speed of light is; what we can do is establish a theoretical maximum speed of light, as arbitrarily measured by using the best methods that human rationale can devise.

Claude

S.O.L. PARADOX (REVISITED)

See Behavior of Waves, The Doppler Effect at:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/waves/u10l3d.html

This page may help understand why the "paradox" of the speed of light exists. If the electromagnetic waves travel of their own velocity (once released from the source) at some constant rate, then any motion within those waves will be in relation to the waves, so that from the moving observer's point of view, they are either faster or slower than C, the speed of light.

The same would be experienced within the medium of any mass, such as water or air, so that the kinetic waves there will travel either with or against any moving observer within them, such as a boat or aircraft. For the observer, the waves are not at a constant speed, but vary in relation to the boat or aircraft traveling through them. Of course, kinetic waves need a medium within which to travel, such as sound waves, or ocean waves. In space, electromagnetic energy may or may not need such a medium, though the idea of an "ether" persists, and electricity moves through metallic mass, though it can also jump through a vacuum.

I hope this helps illustrate the Speed of Light Paradox. In essence, light is not at a constant velocity from every observational point of view, or every reference frame, but is relative to the motion of the observer, so that it may be faster or slower depending upon the direction of observer's motion.

Ivan

S.O.L PARADOX, continued:

LIGHT LUNACY
http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html

This quote is lifted from the above source (as reference link was posted by A_twit on the Examined Life Online Philosophy Journal Discussion Board => On Time => Sept. 28, 2002):

"On the fourth day of the Symposium, Dr. Irwin I. Shapiro presented a talk titled OBSERVATIONAL TESTS OF RELATIVITY. Shapiro was the principal investigator for the above mentioned Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory's analysis of the interplanetary radar data that came from radar stations scattered throughout the world, and his research was funded by the Air Force. In the talk, Shapiro presented the illusion that the radar data was consistent with Einstein's general relativity theory. The talk was essentially the same as the paper titled "Radar Observations of the Planets" which he had published in the prestigious journal Scientific American. [59] In my debate with Shapiro, in the comment session that followed his talk, he admitted that all his calculations were based on a constant speed of light c (the wave in ether model), and he had not tested c+v (the particle model). He did this, in spite of the fact, that the major problem in modern physics, is the wave- particle paradox. That is, in some experiments light seems to behave like a wave, and in other experiments it seems to behave as a particle. He admitted the fact that the published radar analysis showed very large impossible variations in the calculated value of the astronomical unit (the mean distance between the earth and the sun), that were far larger than their maximum estimate of all possible errors. The graphed calculated values of the astronomical unit contained a daily component that was proportional to the relative velocity due to the Earth's rotation, a 30-day component, related to the Earth-Moon rotation, and a component related to the relative solar orbital velocities of the Earth and Venus. [60] The variations in the calculated value of the astronomical unit are what one would expect to find if the speed of light was c+v, and the calculations were based on c. The astronomical unit is the basic unit of measurement used by astronomers for the solar system."

If this is so, then the c + v model for observations of light speed make more sense, which explains the Speed of Light Paradox. Or let me put it this way: If the "brains" who dedicate their lives to these studies cannot come to terms with this paradox, and it is left for us "outsiders" to point it out plainly in simple language, isn't it time to reconsider the whole Theory of Relativity? Or, as Kristos A. Tsolkas says in the post above: "The Theory of Relativity is Wrong".

Ivan

RE: A SOLUTION FOR THE SOLAR NEUTRINO PROBLEM, by David J Reynolds and Bryan W Doughty
(brought to my attention by my friend J___.)

http://www.btinternet.com/~david.reynolds1/neutrino/

In the second section: Light and Gravity, the authors say:

"It is implicit in this calculation that the frame of reference defined by the composite gravitational field provided by all relevant matter (that is matter which has gravitational influence over the coordinate in question) in the universe, that is the inertial frame, is the same as the frame of reference defined by the space through which the photon is travelling. It is here postulated that this is not so and that the inertial frame is distinct from the frame of reference defined by the space through which the photon is travelling. In this case, the acceleration of space itself, what we call gravity, is defined relative to the inertial frame."

Of particular note is the last line "the acceleration of space itself, what we call gravity, is defined relative to the inertial frame" which comes into question. Yes, light is accelerated by gravity, as we know from gravitational lensing around large cosmic bodies, but the idea that space moves to do this is the result of erroneous thinking. Space is space, it does not move. It may "appear" to move because of how photons and mass behave in a gravitational field. But gravity is merely a residual force exerted on mass and energy, which are interrelations of one another, and both of which interact with gravity in its many varied forms. We are led to believe gravity is constant because within the sphere of our experience, our solar system, it is. However it is not the result of space moving, but merely the way gravity from its very dense phase interacts, as in black hole centers of galaxies, to its very weak form, as affecting the mass in radiant rich star systems; how it interacts with matter and energy. That the geometry would appear to curve space is only one way of trying to understand it mathematically, but it is not what actually happens. Space is quite content being the plasma filled region rich in electromagnetic energy of all frequencies, but less rich in regions far from energy sources, and redshifted and weakened after having traveled through great cosmic distances of interstellar space, where this is due to the gravity there most likely more dense than experienced on Earth. Space is space. But gravity and space are also a componet of each other. It is how the gravity fields within that space affect everything that gives it the illusion of being curved. That light will accelerate above its maximum C is not a surprise, and should not be considered an anomaly.

There is much work to be done to bring this idea to light, but in time it will come. However, arguing this argument, based on TOE algorithm "h/cw+g=m" (where h=Planck's constant, c=light speed, w=photon wave lambda, g=gravitational constant, m=mass), is not yet defensible, and certainly not acceptable in the thinking of current physics cosmology. In fact, it may be anathema since it changes much of what we presently think we understand, which is understandably a threat to convention. So this idea must remain in the "closet" on this Forum until we have the proof we need, that gravity is a variable constant. Then we will be able to present formally this new theory of energy, mass, and gravity.

GRAVITY THEORY SURPRISE

This new theory is on its way to us, though it is showing up as a very minor anomaly in how the Pioneer deep space probes are behaving. This in the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,658970,00.html

"And that tracking has thrown up surprises. Pioneer 10 is slowing down faster than expected simply based on the gravitational attraction of the sun and planets. The effect is tiny - only about one part in 10bn of that due to the Earth's gravity acting on you right now - but it is definitely there.
This is a puzzle. The effect shows up best in the Pioneers - Pioneer 11 showed the same trend prior to its switch-off - because they are spin-stabilised. In essence, the whole spacecraft acts like a gyroscope, spinning once every 14 seconds, and this helps maintain its orientation."

Regretably, the spin factor, which should be increasing as the probes go deeper into space, is adjusted periodically with gas jets, so some important evidence is being neglected, due to not knowing what to look for. The Guardian is brutally frank about this:

"Explanations fall into three camps. The third in line is the easiest to state: our knowledge of physics is incomplete, or wrong. That is, gravity does not behave the way we think (such as the inverse-square law not working at very large distances), or perhaps there is an unknown "fifth force" to accompany the weak and strong nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity. This would undermine all cosmological theories. Such an interpretation is to be resisted."

But why resisted? Shouldn't it be explored frankly instead?

Thanks J___! I think we have a clue here, Dr. Watson... but they're all still looking for "gravitons" and "dark matter particles", and fail to see that gravity is inherently unequal.

Ivan

Ivan,

You wrote: “Space is space, it does not move. It may "appear" to move because of how photons and mass behave in a gravitational field.”

Be careful and do not lose perspective. The universe is an object, and more than enough evidence exists to prove there are no voids in space. We must then treat space as matter, and be very cognizant of that fact always in our thinking. Many others and I believe that the universe consists of 99% plasma, and the foremost authorities concerning the plasma universe are the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Los Alamos Laboratory (lanl) with enough abstracts on file it is not even humanly possible for one person to read all of them in twenty lifetimes.

The Dayton Miller aether-drift experiments confirmed – space moves, and yes, I acknowledge those experiments as valid without a doubt.

The list keeps going, and going, and going but we list only seven Anti BBT problems

1. Dayton Miller aether-drift
2. Redshift problems
3. Minkowski space-time
4. Curved space
5. Light speed is not a constant
6. Background radiation is too smooth
7. Too many large structures in the universe

Here we open the can of worms addressing problem number seven-

In 1986, Brent Tully of Hawaii University discovered huge agglomerations of galaxies ("superclusters") approximately one billion light years long, three hundred million light years wide, and one hundred million light-years thick. In order for such vast objects to form, it would take between eighty and one hundred billion years; that is to say, at least four or five times longer than potentially possible according to the big bang theory. Since then, there are other evidentiary findings, which confirm the Tully observations. R. B. Tully, Astrophysics Journal 303:25-38 (1986)

In November of 1989, Margaret Geller and John Huchra, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, announced the results of their research. Their map of the sky revealed what they termed the "Great Wall" -- a huge sheet of galaxies 200 million light years across and 700 million light years long. M. J. Geller and J. P. Huchra, Science 246:897-903 (1990)

In 1990 a team of American, British, and Hungarian astronomers reported in Aerospace America even larger structures. They found galaxies clustered into thin bands spaced approximately 600 million light years apart. The pattern of clusters is huge, believed to be about seven billion light years across. This huge shell and void pattern would require more than 150 billion years to form, based on the estimated speed of their movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology. E. G. Lerner, Aerospace America, March 1990, pp. 38-43

January 3, 1991, Will Saunders and nine other astronomers published the results of their all-sky redshift survey of galaxies as was detected by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite. This survey revealed the existence of a much greater number of massive superclusters of galaxies than what can be accounted for by Big Bang cosmologies. Will Saunders, et al, Nature 349:32-38 (1991)

Claude

Gravity revisited, it just ain't what it used to be:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0209/12gravity/

[quote]
Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of nature. It shapes the Universe around us, allowing planets, stars and galaxies to form. However, the more scientists study gravity and its effects on celestial objects, the more mysteries they seem to uncover. One example is the so-called 'Pioneer anomaly', named after the NASA space probes Pioneer 10 and 11, on which the effect was first noticed. The anomaly was revealed when a number of spacecraft were seen to be affected by an unknown force that slowed them down. The same behaviour has now been detected on NASA's Galileo and the joint ESA-NASA Ulysses spacecraft...
[end quote]

There's just too much darn gravity out there! Of course, Atomus Summus explains a possible reason why...

Ivan

"What is the Purpose of Life?"

Dear Claude,

The above question was stimulated by something you wrote back in June 2, 2002 (TOE-2), which listed the Second Postulates:

"The purpose of the universe is to support life.
Second Postulates-

1. Life exists
2. Life exists as a necessity
3. Life serves a purpose
4. Life is the means to obtain a specific goal"

Hi Ivan,

The digression on my part was intentional. In this area of thought, I do not think answers are potentially knowable beyond our own personal experience; therefore, decisions based on individual experience cannot be verified. Although each of us at some point develops our belief system adequately to become comfortable with it, we cannot prove the systems validity, even to ourselves. But, I also think that is the way it should be, and the reason it is this way. If we were to learn everything there is to know about life, life would become meaningless, which to me, would render life worthless, and without purpose. Perhaps for some people that would not be true.

I do not buy into Darwin evolution, never did, and I have not seen a convincing argument presented by anyone. Over the years I have developed a counterargument to evolution as is presently taught in the classroom, and expounded by the scientific community. So far, it has never been defeated; moreover, it is most simple, and goes like this.

Explain the evolutionary processes that asexual life forms (simple single celled creatures) underwent to become two distinct separated sexes, male, and female of a single species.

I do not believe in any form of evolution whatsoever. I think the universe always was, is, and will be forever. I believe life is congruent the universe; therefore, I reject the notions of evolution, and creationism, and think both concepts are invalid.

I believe in God, but not any of the conventional deities of organized religions.

Concerning #4 on the list of Postulates: “4. Life is the means to obtain a specific goal."

The goal of life is to perpetuate life.

Claude

Dear Claude,

You say: "The goal of life is to perpetuate life."

And I say: "In effect, we are called upon to evolve, of necessity, to discover what it is that we are seeking. The purpose of life appears to be the need to discover itself at its utmost dimensional complexity, and be it."

These seem to be "plausible parallels", in that both need to perpetuate life, to be life, to keep the spirit of discovery alive. I don't know if discovery at infinite limits would give us all the answers, making life meaningless, or unnecessary, but I also don't think there is any danger of this happening. I too am happy with an open ended mystery, God or Love or Infinity, that gives us some greater meaning in its greater puzzlement. What gave the impetus for singled celled asexual life to become bi-sexual? I would say the need for diversity. But then the universe seemed to stop with number two, and left it there, meaning there is no need for a third or fourth sex, which in itself disproves Goedel's theorem. Of course, all this could be an "accident" interrupting "chaos", which makes the whole point moot, except that we have "evolved" enough to have a mind that can think about it. Is life then the experience the universe created for our benefit, to satisfy our minds, or is it created for its own infinite purpose, of which we are but interested spectators? The fact that we can think about it is meaningful, but I suspect is not the meaning of it all. If there is a Purpose of Life, it is very likely bigger than we can possibly fathom at our present state of mind. Perhaps a 100 million years from now, it will all be much clearer, and our descendants will laugh at our questions. Or perhaps they will see our questions as germinal to what they then will understand.

Any other way to see this, as to what is life's "specific goal"? This is an open ended question.

Ivan