What would you choose???

[Just Charlie]

Sweet...the nitty gritty. Lets bust out some ontology!

I'm not approaching this from an ontological perspective, but just trying to make some clear distinctions between earth and the observable universe which help me reach a conclusion to the question of the thread. Ontological questions like "what is existence" are really a lot to get caught up in.

As far as we can see, or know? I don't think any serious cosmologist would ever say their knowledge of the universe (much less our own oceans) is anything near exhaustive.

At the very "ends" of the universe the data people gather are not only billions of years old but fuzzy at best...usually analysing shifts in extremely faint radio signals and then magically extrapolating data out to wildly unsure, but interesting nonetheless, conclusions.

Whether or not there's life on the far reaches of the universe (we don't know) is a matter outside of the scope of this topic, since I was establishing without doubt that you won't be encountering any life on an expedition into space - much less on a week long trip which wouldn't take you far at all speaking in universal terms.

So what you're saying is that even though our planet and even ourselves are made of much that same material, that we're still somehow different? This likely boils down to what an individual believes, values, and the circles they choose to draw...which is the whole point of the original question actually.

Absolutely - we are different from the rest of the observable universe. While unanswered questions remain, as they do in all fields of science, our knowledge of the composition of the universe is substantial as you know.

...except for space itself. Not sure what experienced astronauts would say to your remark and looking at the impact craters on the moon...I'm not sure it would agree with you either.

Interact with space? How does that work? In space, you're either 1: confined to a tiny ship, 2: floating aimlessly, or 3: walking on the surface of the moon (if you're lucky). Don't get me wrong, it offers a beautiful view and a unique chance that very few people have. Even with these significant virtues, does that compare to the countless experiences there are to be had on earth to flood every sense that humans have?

I don't understand what impact craters on the moon have to do with this. They were created billions of years ago - the moon is a large dead rock.

It seems to me, the Earth is a phenomena which exits in relation to other greater and smaller phenomena...much like everything else we perceive. The idea of phenomena itself is a matter of perspective and consciousness, as is world and being.

I'm not trying to belittle the magnificence and unlikelyness of our planet but am trying to stress it's (and our) interconnectedness to/with the perceived universe/world. Some people call it science while others call it religion...I call it riding a motorcycle.

You're approaching this from a philosophical perspective and defining some of these ideas in abstract terms which I am not, so I think there is some misunderstanding.

Hahah...I think you been in China too long and it's effecting your grammar. Could you re-render that last statement with clearer context?

Since we're being grammar nazis I think you mean affecting my grammar! hahah what I meant is:

We can observe conditions within the universe and discuss those celestial events with context, but no such context on how the universe fits into larger pieces exists. We can discuss events within our universe by observation, but a discussion on what happens outside the universe (which you alluded to by comparison) is without factual basis.

Also the universe is not alive or organic. The idea that the universe has biological qualities (theoretical physicist Lee Smolin writes about this) is a fringe belief not accepted by cosmologists and Smolin himself says that the universe is not actually alive but might exhibit life-like qualities like heredity.