Your perspective doesn't seem exactly common in hackernews and I appreciate it.
1) I gotta say though when you talk of "the observer" it throws me off as it sounds like the typical quantum woo twisting of the observer effect, perhaps you meant something else? what do you mean by "the observer"?
2) Regarding "the universe is ordered and can be described with a set of rules. There is no full evidence of this, it's just an assumption." this has proven so far to be a good assumption (as seen by the massive amount of scientific knowledge and verified predictions accumulated) and if anything it seems all evidence points to exactly this. Is there evidence that there the universe is more than just 'a pile of particles'? (although that is a somewhat simplistic way to put it)
3) Trying to distill the comment, it seems the main argument is along the lines of "science can't explain life itself and/or consciousness, therefore there must be more" is that a fair assessment? and in that case what would you convince you of the oposite? for e.g what if "life" is well understood and can be reproduced in a lab etc.. what if we can reproduce most human-like intelligence with AI, etc... in other words, what would (realistically) change your mind to the opposite?
I'm just making the case that the spiritualist argument is rational.
Humans in every culture since the dawn of time have referred to 'spirit' or that which seems to animate matter.
Yes - 'laws of the universe' we take as a given because they seem to work for us, in paper fairly well.
But you know what we also take as 'a given'? That you are alive.
'Your life' is kind of more important to you than science. Life itself, and the expression of it, seems to be our #1 concern.
That once branch of thought, Scientific Materialism doesn't by definition allow for life to exist, doesn't deny the nature of life.
1) Not 'quantum observer' - your spirit, soul, or some other scientific description. The word doesn't matter.
2) The evidence the universe is more than a pile of particles is life itself. And consciousness.
3) "Science can't explain life" - it's worse: Scientific Materialism rules it out completely by definition. If we decided that 'the universe is mathematical rules' - then - 'there is no life'. Creating life in a test-tube probably won't give us the answer.
FYI Science also has a problem describing why simple objects can ultimately make up very complicated ones with different problems, it's called 'emergence', it's a field of study.
Finally, I'll refer you to the the concept of 'biocentrism' - which is a more material outlook at the subject without getting so overtly metaphysical, and it's done by real scientists. [1]
1) I gotta say though when you talk of "the observer" it throws me off as it sounds like the typical quantum woo twisting of the observer effect, perhaps you meant something else? what do you mean by "the observer"?
2) Regarding "the universe is ordered and can be described with a set of rules. There is no full evidence of this, it's just an assumption." this has proven so far to be a good assumption (as seen by the massive amount of scientific knowledge and verified predictions accumulated) and if anything it seems all evidence points to exactly this. Is there evidence that there the universe is more than just 'a pile of particles'? (although that is a somewhat simplistic way to put it)
3) Trying to distill the comment, it seems the main argument is along the lines of "science can't explain life itself and/or consciousness, therefore there must be more" is that a fair assessment? and in that case what would you convince you of the oposite? for e.g what if "life" is well understood and can be reproduced in a lab etc.. what if we can reproduce most human-like intelligence with AI, etc... in other words, what would (realistically) change your mind to the opposite?