“… caring can only exist as long as there are living beings intelligent enough in it to care…”
Is that a scientific hypothesis? A philosophical one? A premise/assumption?
“Assuming you believe science to be correct there was most likely and quite possibly will be in the future, a very long period when caring didn’t exist and won’t exist because there were no and will be no beings in it capable of caring.”
Seriously? I’m no scientist, but I am reasonably fluent in their language. I would ask any scientist advancing such a hypothesis what his experimental evidence was. I’m pretty sure no serious scientist even remotely claims to understand “caring” and its existence or non-existence now or at distant points in time. Or intelligence. Or the probability of the existence or non-existence of (extra-terrestrial) intelligent living beings somewhere in the universe now or at any other time.
“ Pound any Roshi worth their salt
with the hard questions long enough
and eventually they’ll cave with the
time honored, “crazy wisdom” cop out.”
Pound any scientist with the hard questions long enough and eventually they’ll cave with the time honored “Occam’s Razor”.
You do realize scientists are the biggest skeptics around who will discard any and all of their “bedrock” beliefs/fundamental principles* if the experimental evidence indicates they should (e.g. conservation of energy, whether fundamental constants like c, g, e etc. are in fact constant, whether there is such a thing as dark matter/energy and on and on)?
*Except for their belief in the “scientific method” and implicitly in “Occam’s Razor”.
