Perhaps that may be the case, HHTVL. But what is the probability that a physical law will be discovered that can account for the plethora of extremely finely-tuned physical constants that are necessary for life to be possible in the first place?
(1) For instance, carbon. According to Dean Overman (in A Case Against Accident and Self-organization), the carbon atom is the fourth most common element in our galaxy. "Life would be impossible without carbon and yet because of the precise requirements for its existence, the carbon atom should be very rare." That's because its formation requires a rare triple collision called the "triple alpha process."
The first colliding step in this process occurs when a helium nucleus collides with another helium nucleus within a star. This collision produces an unstable, very ephemeral isotope of beryllium known as BE8 (BE9 is beryllium's stable form). When the unstable, short lived beryllium collides with a third helium nucleus, a carbon nucleus is formed.(2) Then there's the fact that the explosive power of the Big Bang is precisely matched to the power of gravity.
Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle predicted the resonances (energy levels) of the carbon and oxygen atoms. The resonance of the carbon nucleus is precisely the right resonance to enable the components to hold together rather than disperse. This resonance perfectly matches the combined resonance of the third helium nucleus and the beryllium atom....
By his own admission, Hoyle's atheism was dramatically disturbed when he calculated the odds against these precisely matched resonances existing by chance. Hoyle wrote:
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.
For the universe to form, the force of gravity had to match precisely the explosive force of the Big Bang. If the force of explosion was only slightly higher, the universe would only consist of gas without stars, galaxies or planets. Without stars, galaxies and planets, life could not exist. The matching had to be to the remarkable precision of one part in 1055. If the rate of expansion was reduced by only one part in a thousand billion, the matter in the universe would have collapsed back to a singular point after a few million years.Physicist Bernard Lovell has commented about this situation: "We have attempted to describe the early stages of the expansion of the universe but the description in terms of nuclear physics and relativity is not an explanation of those conditions. Formidable questions arise and it is not clear today where the answers should be sought: Indeed, even the scientific description of these queries produces the remarkable idea that there may not be a solution in the language of science."
"Why is the universe expanding? Furthermore, why is it expanding at so near the critical rate to prevent its collapse? The query is most important because minor differences near time zero would have made human existence impossible.... [O]ut of all possible universes the only one which can exist, in the sense that it can be known, is simply the one which satisfies the narrow conditions necessary for the development of intelligent life."Overman points to several other examples of cosmological constants necessary for the rise of life that appear to be "finely-tuned":
(3) "Delicate balance in strong nuclear force"A detailed discussion of each of these is beyond my present scope. But I'd like to comment on one of them because it is of particular interest to me, (7), the Big Bang's "defiance" of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
(4) "Balancing of gravitational force and electromagnetic force"
(5) "Meticulous balance between number of electrons and protons"
(6) "Precision in electromagnetic force and ratio of proton mass to electron mass and neutron mass to proton mass"
(7) "Big Bang's defiance of Second Law of Thermodynamics and gravity's cumulative effect"
(8) "Delicate balance of values related to weak nuclear force"
(9) "Fine tuning in masses of particles, fundamental values and existence of unchanging types of particles required for DNA"
(10) "Precision in the agreement between abstract mathematics and the laws of the physical world"
As Overman writes, "The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires that entropy or disorder in the universe tends toward a maximum. The contents of the universe are becoming less ordered, and as the universe becomes more disorganized, less of its energy is available to perform work. Because the universe is running down, it must have had a beginning. The universe could not be dissipating from infinity. Reversing the observed process of dissipation, the Second Law of Thermodynamics requires a beginning and a very highly ordered beginning (one with low entropy). If the Big Bang is regarded as only a big, impressive accident, there is no explanation why the Big Bang produced a universe with such a high degree of order, contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, especially considering the cumulative power of gravitating systems in the universe.... [I]n a 1979 calculation Roger Penrose computed that the probability of the observed universe occurring by chance is one in 10300" :
Overman writes:
Given a random distribution of (gravitating) matter it is overwhelmingly more probable that it will form a black hole rather than a star or a cloud of dispersed gas. These considerations give a new slant, therefore, to the question of whether the universe was created in an ordered or disordered state. If the initial state were chosen at random [i.e., by chance], it seems exceedingly probable that the big bang would have coughed out black holes rather than disbursed gases. The present arrangement of matter and energy, with matter spread thinly at relatively low density, in the form of stars and gas clouds would, apparently, only result from a very special choice of initial conditions. Roger Penrose has computed the odds against the observed universe appearing by an accident, given that a black hole cosmos is so much more likely on a priori grounds. He estimates a figure of 10300 to one. [italics added for emphasis.]Relating all this to White's concept of non-intentional bias (BN — which holds that the evolution of life is attributable to physical laws alone — it looks to me that the "undiscovered—yet" physical law that we are looking for to explain the situation would be some kind of law which accounts for the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants necessary for life itself.
But all of these constants are antecedent to the operation of physical laws. And ALL of these antecedent constants must work together for life to arise; so now we need a physical law that can order their interrelations.
Well, at least we know what sort of new laws to look for. The question is: Is it even possible that we will ever find them? What are the odds that such laws could exist? For the operation of physical law ensues after these constants already exist, not before.
To me, it seems much more likely that, as Sir Fred Hoyle says, some sort of superintelligence has been monkeying with the constants so to provide the means for life to emerge and exist, from the beginning. And this would be White's intentional bias hypothesis — BI.
Is there another alternative? For the facts of the case already clearly rule out "chance," C.
Just some thoughts, dear HHTVL. It's marvelous to think about such things. Thank you kindly for your participation in this conversation!
Do you think that THOSE guys will be accused of not understanding the 2nd Law?
Like the rest of us have?
Seems like the evos are the ones without the understanding of the 2nd Law themselves.
We would be stopping short if we do not include in the search for some 'universal law' which derives the exquisite balance, if we do not also include the where/when of our mind and our spirit for these too are intricately woven into the fabric of what The Creator has Created. ... Put another way, the mind and spirit will also function by 'laws' of existence and life, and we have yet to even derive a clue on those where/when 'laws'.
WoW.. beautiful but extremely short detail of the life of a carbon atom.. a very interesting documentary could easily be made on this subject.. I hope all interested in this read your post.. I remember you going into with some detail a few years ago..
Most people I know have never considered such a thing.. “quality of faith” indeed.. The subject could be expanded into the almost pure miracle of where the earth is from the sun, how big it is, it’s make up of chemicals, the presence of a moon the proper size(for life) to exist and all that..
The earth farther or closer to the Sun life could not happen.. If the earth was just a little larger or smaller, life could not happen.. The earth with a different make up and arraignment of chemicals, life could not happen.. i.e. electrical field.. and more...
I propose there may be many other criteria in this mix I am ignorant of also involved.. It’s quite amazing quite literally no one knows what life actually is.. Living cells look exactly like dead ones.. What makes a cell alive and one dead.?. The answers I get for that are comical..
What “IS” God?... I suspect I don’t have the brain power to understand that.. Most people I know think atoms are little marbles rolling around other little marbles.. in some kind of structure.. which is a cartoon.. But most of them know nothing of string theory.. or Quantum thinking..
I say this harboring a secret desire for a tryst with Jessica Rabbit... so I’m not innocent either..
Shes not bad she’s just drawn that way.. I also love the Boop chick..
Thought I would give you a ping so you can tell us how the entropy notion goes nowhere ...