As noted by sigi:
“leitners law: each galaxy does not only have a black hole, but also at least one planet with rosebushes, giraffes, and human beings.”
Mattis noted, that he likes this, and envies me for it. I didn’t understand, because I just saw it as mocking my position. Mattis explained: if one can rely on the fact that each world - each galaxy - has light and darkness, a black hole and a planet with giraffes, then there are conditions that do not enforce the justification of pessimism. UnjustifyPessimism.
Facts: there are about 100.000.000.000 galaxies. Each galaxy typically contains about 100.000.000.000 stars. Each star has the chance of having planets. Each planet has a small chance to develop living organisms.
Do you think that this vast universe is barren and void of life? This is unimaginable. It’s sillier than when natives on a small island here on planet earth might think that nature ends at their island’s shore.
This still has to confront the question of why presence of intelligence is not spelled out across the night sky in green and purple letters. Where is the cosmic engineering we expect to see? Do intelligences become yogis and sit ic cave, or blow themselves up, or what?
My answer is that all intelligent races will include some members who want to be smarter and faster; that these members will end up running the show, so others will follow them; that a light-speed limit means that thinking fast implies becoming smaller (so a thought can travel from one side of your head to the other faster); that at some point in the smaller-and-faster development one is able to simulate places to visit faster than one could visit them, and the civilization implodes into a simulated universe. Hence no cosmic engeneering.
Also, by the principle of mediocracy, we would expect to be in such a universe.
If you were creating a universe because you were interested in learning about other intelligences and had computing power that was vast but finite, what would you do? Well, a lot of the universe would only matter in gross, and not in fine. Who cares where all the atoms are in that distant dead star? An eligant solution would be to set the universe up recursively, calculating exact positions only for things that affect the beings that are your focus of interest.
Does this sound familiar? Quantum-mechanical wave function collapse, maybe?
I make a prediction that may be testable: It will prove possible to represent our universe as a quantum-mecanical wave function with less data than required to store the position, velocity, mass, charge, etc., of each particle.