insight that might come from feelings and intuition. We have feelings, and they are an invaluable part of our perception. So why leave them out of our processes of learning? And by that token, shouldn’t the Universe have feelings? What might the universe want? Doesn’t it care? Could this conversation even occur if it didn’t?
I just happen to be reading here as ISeeAMuse writes. I will take a quick stab at a reply, although I know I have previously read better responses to these questions. At the least I might stimulate others.
Insight is in some instances the initial step in the formulation of hypothesis, the first step in the process of identifying and testing evidence in order to determine reliable conclusions. It is certainly a function of perception, but it is useful to be ever watchful for cognitive dissonance, and beware its effect on perception. The scientific process is the only reliable method of screening dissonance, as well as bias and other inadvertent and/or unrecognized mistakes that affect objective processes and resulting conclusions.
Feelings about perceptions are no different from all feelings: they serve to attract our attention to a condition, and afterward are immediately best discarded, or at least isolated and carefully monitored to prevent their interference in subsequent efforts at achieving rational processes. This requires practice, the amount depending upon an individuals existing mindset, but persistent practice does make it possible to recognize feelings, limit or mitigate any negative impact they may introduce, and utilize the experience of that feeling (and all others) to recognize that one is separate from one’s feelings, just as all reality is separate from feelings. And that is my brief intro to mindfulness practice, which in my opinion is integral to critical thinking and skepticism.
The remarks about the Universe anthropomorphize an entity that, as is already noted in preceding comments, exhibits no characteristics of sentience, nor any possibility of possession of (a) mind. I am aware of no evidence which exists to support this surmise. It seems to me it is a concept purely imaginative, which while something perfectly legitimate to muse upon (sorry), remains pure speculation. Not unlike speculation upon the concept of a supernatural deity. In truth, substitute the word God for the word universe, and the proposition is virtually identical to deity concepts. Speculation devoid of evidence does not constitute a proposition that is necessary, or even advisable, to accept.
As with the concept of supernatural entities, the notion is unfalsifiable and therefore not a testable hypothesis. Having said that, and mindful that I am virtually certain there is no possibility the universe feels, thinks, cares, or is in any way capable of such processes, the most honest response I could offer as to whether it is possible the universe may do all of the things listed above, and in fact it may be necessary that the universe must be capable of these actions in order for this or any conversation to occur, is: “I don’t know.”
EDIT: Sure enough, it takes me so long to say what I want that a 5-way conversation transpires while I slog to the end, and it contains great answers. I become acquainted with Baryonic. And Muse injects Anselme’s ontological argument, which usually is waiting in the wings when singularity is posited:
‘The evidence that the Universe could potentially have feelings lies in the fact that feelings exist.’
I’m a little disappointed with this particular ontological approach. If this proposition were true, rocks could have feelings. Magma. Molecules. Atoms. Protons. Infinite regression.