Is life consistent with the Laws of the Universe? Well, duh.
Flood, Fire, and Famine
in the History of Civilization
by Richard Firestone,
Allen West, and
Simon Warwick-Smith
Posted on 11/15/2018 5:19:25 AM PST by Heartlander
Humans have often looked at the night sky and wondered if there’s anyone else out there. But stare into that darkness long enough, and many wonder instead: how did we get here? What were the odds, in a universe so enormous and chaotic, that humans should have come to exist at all? Is life, let alone intelligent life, such a wildly improbable occurrence that we’re the only ones here? Or are we an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics?
Life exists on Earth (assuming we’re not living in a computer simulation). Therefore, the universe must exist in such a way that we are possible. That’s the essence of the anthropic principle. On the one hand, it sounds tautological. By that, I mean, I’m just saying the same thing twice. But cast another way, it can lead us to important truths about the universe. It means any version of the universe we can fathom has to allow for life to exist at least once. When there are things we don’t understand about the universe — how dark energy works, how the cosmos formed — all our theories have to include the fact that we exist. The universe must allow us.
Some people have taken this anthropic principle theory to extreme ends. It can imply that the universe must favor life, or even life like us, which isn’t exactly the same thing.
And it does seem hard to believe humans exist, given the huge range of paths the universe could have taken. I don’t just mean that the dinosaur-killing asteroid could have hit a few million years later and changed the course of evolution on the planet. A bit more fundamental is the idea that without a moon and its accompanying tides, maybe Earth creatures never would have ventured out of the oceans. But we can dive even deeper. The laws of physics themselves seem perfected just for us.
An old version of this anthropic principle argument involves the Hoyle state, a particular state of a particular type of carbon. If the Hoyle state didn’t exist, stars could not produce the abundance of carbon they do. Carbon is the basic element upon which life is built. If it were scanter in the universe, life wouldn’t exist, down to the simplest microbes. And it wasn’t clear, for a long time, how the Hoyle state worked, just that it must: After all, here we are.
More recently, scientists have pointed out that if one tweaks many of the dimensionless physical constants — numbers like pi that are independent of units and simply exist as fundamental ideas — none of the cosmos we see would exist. One of these numbers is omega, the density parameter, which pits gravity’s pull against the expanding push of dark energy. If gravity were stronger, the universe would have long since ceased expanding, and would have collapsed back down in a reverse Big Bang, often called the “Big Crunch.” If dark energy were stronger, then the universe would race away from itself so that no matter would stick together and stars, planets, and people could never form.
If the cosmos were truly a random and senseless arrangement of particles, it seems eerie or suspicious to many that these two forces balance so delicately.
But we can remember the tautological approach: if the universe were any way other than what it is, we wouldn’t be here to worry about it. Of course the universe seems fine-tuned to us; it’s the only one we know.
This argument in itself gives rise to questions about a multiverse. Are there, then, other universes where the laws of physics don’t allow matter to stick together and form stars and planets, dogs and cats? The anthropic principle doesn’t answer this. We’re left to ponder.
The truth is that right now, we’re drastically short on data. We’ve only stepped foot on two bodies in the whole universe. We’ve only sent probes to a handful more. After that, it’s all just long-distance photography skills and a lot of semi-applied math.
We can ask how often the universe provides the things we think are necessary to life — the Drake equation is a good attempt to quantify this. But even that assumes that life must be somewhat as we know it.
What about inorganic life forms? Scientists have posited chemical reasons for and against life forms that vary too much from what we know on Earth. Maybe the Hoyle state is irrelevant, if other forms of life don’t require carbon anyway. You can get pretty trippy heading down this rabbit hole of questioning. How would we even recognize life so different from us? For that matter, how do we know rocks aren’t sentient, and we’ve just never noticed, so caught up in our carbon chauvinism?
The universe does seem fine-tuned for our existence. The flip side, of course, is that we are unarguably fine-tuned to the universe we find ourselves in.
Any explanation for existence runs into logical problems, so I find your objection boring.
And your use of caps lock ruins any desire I have to take you seriously.
Not a kook.
I like to think of myself as a Christian Intellectual in the mold of Saint Augustine of Hippo. Not afraid of science and I believe God is the Perfect Architect and Designer, and science is the tool He uses to create things.
The idea of God ‘snapping his fingers” to “Hocus-Pocus” something into existence is a child’s thinking.
Note that the Bible doesn’t give us God’s exact recipe for anything he created, even man is raised from dust and breathed into, but what kind of dust, how the air was breathed, all remain not described. Science tells us how.
When one uses their mind/soul/spirit (which was made in God’s image) to examine creation one realizes that the Laws of the Universe; physics, botany, biology, astronomy, chemistry, etc., are ALL God’s laws and ways! And yes, even evolution, although many think that only Atheists believe the evolutionary process of life on Earth, but it is actually God’s method, not some totally random long series of events.
Imagine a master billards player, who, before taking the first shot and breaking the triangle, called every ball and every pocket, and then just did so.
Such is God’s use of his tools to create life.
There's a Book about that. It starts off "In the beginning..."
OK,
How about a Sun Dial?
You really need to stop digging your hole deeper.
One of my old physics professors argued that life on earth wouldn’t exist if ice wasn’t less dense than water. I believe that’s not true of any other element regarding their solid versus liquid states.
“How incredibly egotistical of humans to believe that the Universe was created just for our benefit.”
Egotistical? Or is it *thankful*?
Amen to that
Fred Hoyle said it’s like a tornado forming a working 747 as it passed through a junkyard.
400+ amino acids linked in perfect order to form the simplest protien required for organic life. Random? That’s mathematically impossible.
But meanwhile, Luke 18:9-14 is where I want my heart at.
I like your attitude.
Whether the universe is billions of years old or merely thousands it doesn’t really matter. God did it all either way. He still sits on the throne regardless.
Agreed.
Luke 18:14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”
To be honest, I had to hit up Google for the exact chapter and verses. I’m pretty good with the overview but I’m terrible with “chapter & verse” style quotation.
Is life consistent with the Laws of the Universe? Well, duh.
Flood, Fire, and Famine
in the History of Civilization
by Richard Firestone,
Allen West, and
Simon Warwick-Smith
Is life consistent with the Laws of the Universe? Well, duh.
|
Is life consistent with the Laws of the Universe? Well, duh.
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · subscribe · | ||
| Google news searches: exoplanet · exosolar · extrasolar · | ||
Is life consistent with the Laws of the Universe? Well, duh.
If you look at life on earth over time it seems to follow a pattern: Things evolve to fit a nitch they stay in that nitch until something replaces them in that nitch. It does not seem to deviate from that pattern even among our supposed precursors.
Our supposed ancestors fit the former rather than the latter, we advanced more in the 10k years after the Younger Dryas than any creature that has inhabited this ever.
If we assume that String Theory (ST) gives a good description then the question is related to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape The number of theoretically allowed vacua (universes) is extremely large and that is one of the arguments against ST; the issue is to find ways to exclude as many as possible and to find relationships between different parameters so even more are excluded.
If this can be done and if we end up with only one universe then we are done. If there are more than one then there are different possible universes and then the question arise which of the suggested vacua that can give rise to life. The mathematics in ST is quite hard, so it will take some time until there is a solution. That is an argument against studying ST, there are many other areas to study with a better probability to get something interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
