Intrication

Consider the intricacy of this world, the circumstances which occur -including all causes by any degree of influence on the situation-, the decisions made by every person -also as a result of vast variances of influence-, and the countless relevant circumstances which were necessary to occur in the past, as a lead-up to the present situation. The complexity of relevant variables is virtually immeasurable and incomprehensible.

To include purpose to the equation of this world, certain circumstances are necessary to occur. As I determined in my posts of “Inverted Inevitability”, “Purpose Potential”, “Purpose vs Probability”, “Indeterminism”, and “Conditional Coercion”, there is the possibility of purpose being present in this world, by allowance of uninfluenced results, yet guaranteed occurrence of required circumstances.

The orchestrator of the occurrence of the certain circumstances would no doubt be what we identify as God. If God created the necessary conditions for humans to exists (and therein purpose, via free will), with a vastly complex set of variables to allow the scenario of uninfluenced free choice, then would God continue to implement conditions throughout the world, after humans were already existent with free choice? And if so, how, with the allowance of free will changing all circumstances from that point on, and restraining Gods effect of alteration?

If God has a will (or preferred scenario of occurrence) -as intentional implemented purpose would indicate- beyond the initial allowance of our free will, then it seems necessary that he would indeed continue to implement conditions throughout the world. Even if Gods will is to allow a significant quantity of humanised free will, it would still be potentially necessary to implement conditions.

The only way God could alter or implement intentional conditions while allowing free will, would be for our will to be for God to alter conditions. If God altered conditions relative to the decision of any human, without our will, in the intent of a certain cause, he would have to influence our will, which would be a reduction of our free will.

Since nearly -or perhaps entirely- all occurrences in the modern day world would be relative to someone or another’s decision at some point (or else that occurrence wouldnt pertain in that exact way), it seems that it could be necessary for God to reduce the free will of some, in order to alter conditions (even if the alteration is of the will of someone for God to do so).

But perhaps the method of application for God altering conditions (which require a certain decision from people), could be similar to what was theoretically applied in order to guarantee the minimal necessary circumstances for humans to have existed in the 1st place. The method of allowing vastly complex variables to occur without influence (allowing freedom), yet predicting the occurrence, and in the event of the unacceptable circumstance, readjusting the initial vastly complex variable starting setup.

Is that method of application significantly different from directly influencing circumstances for an intentional outcome? Altering the original starting setup based on knowledge of outcome would in essence, actually be influencing the scenario and reducing freedom possibility and potential.

The difference would be the degree of influential alteration vs freedom. In the scenario of; altering the beginning state of all matter and elements in the universe to a new random uninfluenced state, in the case of the 1st trial not resulting in human-like consciousness being developed (with perhaps the probability being 2/1 for eg), would be an incredibly small degree of influence and small reduction of freedom of possibility. Some degree of influence is required after all, otherwise nothing would occur in the 1st place, theoretically. So the difference is significant between that influential alteration and direct influence of outcome.

As long as the original starting state of human consciousness was not directly implemented in a certain way -but allowed alternate possibility based on uninfluenced variables-, then free will could exist, and therein potential purpose.

It seems relatively easy for God to have implemented initial free will in this world, based on uninfluenced variables and allowing probability of specific occurrences involving said variables, to cause the necessary steps toward human consciousness and free will.

Conditional Coercion

If purpose exists in this universe -by means of allowance of optional and alternate occurrence-, implemented by the concept of indeterminised random variability, then can the required conditions and relative further progression be guaranteed?

Given the beginning conditions of the universe, of the state of the laws of physics, variety of elements, and quantity of elements, is it possible for the required progressive scenarios (relative to the existence of human beings) to be guaranteed to occur, based on probability alone?
It seems based on solely probability and no interference of intent implemented, there could still be a chance of required progression not occurring.

Even if the probability was 1/100, and there’s 1 trillion random unknown occurrences, there would still be that 1/10 Billion chance that progression does not occur, which is less than guaranteed. If there was purpose, it seems relevant for the scenario of purpose occurring, to be guaranteed.

So, in order for the required purpose scenario to exist -of lack of intentional implementation, by unknown variables-, perhaps the scenario of the universe occurring with those intentionally unknown and unaltered variables, could be predicted -for insurance of the required progressive occurrences. If the required occurrences are predicted for pertinence or not, while leaving the unknown variables up to probability, then on the chance that the necessary happenings do not occur, a reassimilation of the beginning state of the universe would be implemented.

This would be similar to needing a video clip for a movie, of someone rolling 2 dice to show a 6, without placing them intentionally. You could have the person roll the dice as many times as necessary, in order to get the video, then use the video clip where it finally occurs, to then be able to continue the movie.

By this method of conditional coercion, it could be guaranteed for the necessary scenarios to occur, which will allow progression in the universe to the point of human existence.
It would be guaranteed, yet still aspects would be left to probability, randominity, chance, and variability with those numerous allowed occurrences in the universe, of unimplementation and indeterminisation.

Indeterminisation

If purpose, then why probability?

To summarise my theorage on purpose vs probability as an explanation of our existence;

The Probability Theory would be that by method of trial and error, with enough recurrences -as the probability- of randomised scenarios, progression will occur by default.

The Purpose Theory would dispute that plausibility, since there would need to be infinite universes in order for the required number of recurrences to allow the probability of the required beginning conditions of the universe to occur. Counter conditional to the universe being a random occurrence based on probability, the beginning conditions of the universe would need to occur with an intended cause -or purpose.

On this premise, it would insinuate that some occurrences in the universe would have a purpose, or an intentional cause. Considering humans are the most significant thing we know of in the universe, it could be a safe assumption that we are relevant to that purpose, as it seems unlikely we would occur by fluke, when there is an alternate purpose in the universe. With this assumption, it would explain the specific conditions of the beginning state of the universe, which cause all the following circumstances for humans to exist.

This leads me to the question, why does probability and trial and error seem evident in the occurrences since the start of the universe, if everything could occur directly and intentionally?
If the beginning state of the universe was intentional to cause humans (or any similar conscious-like entity) to exist at some point, it could be done using probability -without direct influence- to allow optional possibilities. It could be done using probability by creating the sufficient physical laws, elements, and mass amount of elements, in order to allow the quantity of recurrences of all necessary progressive circumstances, to outnumber the denominator of probability of each required scenario of advantageous progression.

It would likely be done this way rather than direct influence to allow that aspect of optional possibilities of indeterminisation. Alternatively, if the entire universe and every circumstance of all time, to pertain within, was predetermined, calculated, and directly forced, it seems like purpose would be lost, and occurrence would be unnecessary.

This lack of determinism is what could allow for what we call free will. For humans to have a freedom of choice, our decisions need to be not directly caused.

So the concept of probability is what causes intentional occurrence, within a randomised scenario, when combined with the sufficient conditions and quantity of variables for the initial state to procure the necessary number of recurrences to cause trial and error to implement the progressive conditions.

The variability allows purpose by lack of predetermination, while probability allows purpose by inevitable self-occurrence of basic minimal circumstances.

Purpose vs Probability

All function and progress in the universe seems to apply the concept of trial and error. Using this concept, it seems anything -from random circumstantial fluke occurrences, to intellectual coached and analysed positive or negatively reinforced experiments- can make progression.

With a given scenario of significantly numerous repeated trials, even seemingly random happenstances can develop to a more advanced state. As long as within each random occurrence, there is some possibility of the progressive conditions to occur, -by the logic of probability- on average there just needs to be as many repetitions as the denominator of the probability of the beneficial scenario to occur.

Take the formation of solar systems as an example. The probability of a planet forming in orbit around a star, at the precise conditions in which Earth exists -for potential life to begin, as the progressive advancement-, may be perhaps 1/1 trillion. But assuming 1 trillion is the denominator of the probability of the conditions of an Earth-like planet, there theoretically just needs to be 1 trillion occurrences of solar systems forming, for that 1 potential scenario of advancement to take place.

This could be taken as a potential argument contradicting the reasoning of; the probability of purpose of existence -based on the simple fact that the scenarios have occurred, theoretically implicating that there is purpose, otherwise the scenario would not have occurred. Trial and error might be considered a contradictory argument, since it could be suggested that the advancement and beneficial circumstances for our existence, happened simply based on probability and repeated random circumstances. This seems like a plausible explanation for the specific beneficial circumstances of the Earths delicate conditions, and mmayyybe even evolution allowing development to humanity's current conscious state, as there could have plausibly been enough repeated random scenarios of solar systems forming, as well as life sparking on planets and surviving long enough.

BUT, I dont see how trial and error could explain the original and dominating circumstances, allowing potential progression in the universe. By original circumstances, I’m referring to the laws of physics which reign over, control and permit allowance of all occurrences in the universe from the beginning of time. If you were to consider the probability of trial and error as the explanation for the laws of physics existing in the precise constructs as they do -which is required, from the start of the universe, for all other occurrences (which may reasonably have themselves been trial and error)-, then logically there would need to be significantly numerous repeated scenarios of random occurrences of variations of laws of physics.

The original required dominating circumstances not only includes the laws of physics, but also the massive quantity of elemental material in the universe, necessary to allow for the previously mentioned numerous repeated scenarios of solar systems and life sparking and surviving within the solar systems. Without such an enormous quantity of mass of varying elements, there would have been insufficient repeated random occurrences of solar systems, for probability of trial and error to allow the delicate conditions of Earth to pertain.

To further analyse the required initial circumstances of the universe to allow trial and error to be an effective method of execution, all elements and substances in the universe need to exist as they do. In combination with the laws of physics and the quantity of material, there also needs to be the precise variety of elements and material for the universe to operate as it does, allowing the potential for life to exist.

Considering these 3 (at least) requirements initial to the existence of the universe, for the potential of our existence, it seems unlikely to me that the probability of trial and error is rationalisation for the present scenario of conscious human existence.

Taking the concept of trial and error into theoretical effect, with the beginning state of the universe existing as it does (including the necessary laws of physics, varying elements, and quantity of material), there would need to be as many numerous repeated scenarios of the universe existing, as the denominator of the probability of its initial state. Theoretically, from what we know, the plausible alternate circumstantial states of the universe, would be infinite. Since the alternate possibilities would be the denominator of probability, this would insinuate that the required repeated scenarios of the initial state of the universe would have to also be infinite.

It seems to come down to 2 plausible scenarios of the explanation of our existence in the universe, being either:
-random probability, including infinite universes
-or intentional purpose, including propagation

By my interpretation, analysis, and estimate, I’d say purpose is more probable.

Purpose Potential

What potential is there for purpose of life and the existence of the universe in general?

I theorised that there is the potential for the presence of purpose, despite all occurrences in the universe -including conscious decision- being plausibly technically predetermined and calculated, as of the beginning of the universe. Is it likely that there is purpose? and on the assumption that there is purpose to our existence and the universe, what might that purpose be?

It seems to me likely that there is a purpose, as a logical determination that with a lack of purpose, there would be a lack of existence. At least in this world of humanities conscious decisions, any action is taken to intentionally apply an effect by means of cause. This is what I might consider to be purpose. There is generally a purpose to causing an effect as a result of any decision we make. To make a decision without purpose, would seem careless and disregardful of actions.

Actions can be made without conscious decision, which perhaps seem as though they have no purpose. But I think those actions have a hidden purpose, unaware to you, as the action itself was. Actions lacking conscious and mentally alert consideration, are theoretically subconscious or instinctual actions. The hidden purpose behind subconscious or instinctual actions could be regarded as the purpose to allow that individual to survive and reproduce, as is the purpose of generally any actions of any species of animal, as infused by evolution. So it would seem the default purpose of natural life is virtually to contribute to the continuation and prosperity of its species.

This principle of purpose could theoretically be continued from subconscious animals, and applied to conscious decisions of humans, and that consciousness simply enables us to more effectively persist as a species. But if the purpose is for a species to persist, it begs the question, what is the purpose for species to exist? Most species of animals to have existed would then have failed their purpose, if the final purpose was to persist, since most species of animals have gone extinct. This seems to insinuate that perhaps the purpose of species existing is but a step and a means to another purpose.

A plausible alternate effect caused by the existence and persistence of animals, is the individuals themselves experiencing life. But, considering all animals other than humans (from what we know) live life mentally subconscious -and lacking further conscious awareness-, it seems unlikely that the purpose to their lives is experience. With a relatively simple mental process of an action causing a reaction based on subconscious memory recall of that general occurrence having a negative or positive influential reinforcement, the experience of life seems as though it is duly flirting by for animals.

But as humans have developed a capability of further mental awareness, comprehension, and potential appreciation, the potential for purpose being experience of life seems more plausible for our species specifically -at least to this point in time. Besides this potential purpose being relative to our mental capabilities, evolutionary development of species seems to have led to the result of human consciousness. At this point in time, as far as we know, our species consciousness is theoretically the most significant and relevant development of evolution and therein the existence of all species prior. It would seem, if persistence of prior species was but a step of purpose allowing for a further potential of purpose, then human existence and our relevant and relative conscious awareness, would likely be the next step of purpose.

As purpose implies an intentional effect, the most likely conclusive analysis of effects of all life and existence in this world, would seem to lead to humans being conscious of decisions and life itself. Whether or not that is the final step of purpose potential is another question.

Inverted Inevitability

Is everything inevitable?

My theorised tentative conclusion was that, if consciousness is a precise predictable calculation, then all conscious decisions (along with all occurrences in the universe) are likely inevitable to pertain exactly as they do. If this was so, everything would be 100% pre-determined, and it would be impossible to change the outcome of what is going to occur.

This initially seems contradictory to there being any potential purpose to anything occurring, as it would indicate that a conscious entity causing an intentional action, will create no different effect on the inevitable outcome. Everyone would be bound to make every single decision of their life exactly as they do.

Digging deeper, maybe it is possible that there is a purpose to existence, despite its inevitability. Perhaps all plausible decisions in the lives of every decision capable entity to ever have lived, and which will ever live, are absolutely determined at this point, and the point they occur, and at every point in time, except the instant which the universe began. Before (taking that term lightly) the universe began, when (also, lightly…) time was at a stand still, maybe at that moment (diddo) there was varying plausible outcomes to the universe, and every action and reaction within it. Perhaps in that instance, all decisions ever to pertain, made a relevant difference with their uncertainty and indefinite potential.

All decisions -as well as of course all unconscious, physical reactions of all material in the universe, ever- would then be predetermined to an exact science and mathematical calculation, from that point on, of the universe spawning into existence, and time ticking its initial millisecond (or infinite division of a millisecond...). But, if before that instance, all occurrences were allowed the liberty of uncertainty and plausible alterations, then decisions could theoretically make a difference. With decisions having the potential to have a relevant impact on the outcome of the choice being made, this could allow for potential purpose to life, and the universe in itself.

So in theory, any decision you make, may be inevitable at this point in time, but it still makes a difference, as it was not inevitable at one point. Its almost as if, you making a certain decision, dictates how every molecule and atom in the universe was arranged as it permeated into existence. In the scenario where you were to make a different decision than actually occurs, the molecules would have been arranged differently, in some miniscule way, as the universe began, as well as every molecules’ interaction throughout all of history, which was connected to the chain of reaction to allow the perfect circumstances for you to make that precise decision.

The liberty of allowance, prior to the universe's procurement, of what is to occur in the future, could theoretically be what enables the plausibility of alternate outcomes of the universe, and consecutively, every decision you make.