There HAS to be life on other planets..

[ding]

Why is my argument wrong and yours right?

Your argument is based upon the likelihood of life appearing in this universe with these laws of nature. Which I agree with because this universe was created to produce intelligence. My argument is on the universe having matter/energy in it instead of just radiation and what matter/energy it had in it being capable of producing life due to the actual structure of the particles. What I am telling you isn't anything new.

 

[expat500]

What if there isn’t…….life on other planets.

And we are totally alone, in the universe.

 

[scruffy]

. Which is the order they got wrong?

I think it was the birds. I forget. If you really want to know I'll go back and research it for you.

 

[scruffy]

No, improbabilities. Such that it can't be an accident and must be intentional. And not planets, solar systems or galaxies either. I'm talking about the improbability of a matter filled universe popping into existence in the first place and the improbability of the structure of matter and laws of nature allowing for life to arise and produce beings that know and create.

The entire universe is alive. Our biological definition is anthropocentric. Life occurs as an inevitable result of the fundamental symmetries. Wherever there are such symmetries (which is "everywhere"), there will be life.

 

[scruffy]

But there is only one configuration which would yield a universe capable of producing life.

Somehow I doubt that. You'd have to prove it, which is a little beyond our current math I think.

However I grok your basic point and agree with it. There is a limited subset of possible configurations that will support life.

What makes this a little mystifying is, neither life nor anything else would work without "quantum fluctuations", which is to say randomness. It has to be present in the right proportions to work.

 

[22lcidw]

What if there isn’t…….life on other planets.

And we are totally alone, in the universe.

Then there's a good chance there will not be any life left in the universe at some point.

 

[ding]

I think it was the birds. I forget. If you really want to know I'll go back and research it for you.

No, it's not important. I was wondering if you were going to say "light." A lot of people think they got that wrong, but it is 100% correct. The first ~400,000 years the universe was opaque because radiation had not decoupled from matter.

I actually didn't spend too much time analyzing the sequence. My big take away was that they were saying everything that they see wasn't done all at once. That it evolved over time.

 

[ding]

The entire universe is alive. Our biological definition is anthropocentric. Life occurs as an inevitable result of the fundamental symmetries. Wherever there are such symmetries (which is "everywhere"), there will be life.

I couldn't agree more. I see the universe as somewhat as a single organism. At least if I squint my eyes hard enough, lol.

 

[ding]

Somehow I doubt that. You'd have to prove it, which is a little beyond our current math I think.

However I grok your basic point and agree with it. There is a limited subset of possible configurations that will support life.

What makes this a little mystifying is, neither life nor anything else would work without "quantum fluctuations", which is to say randomness. It has to be present in the right proportions to work.

I got the idea from George Wald's lecture, "Life and Mind in the Universe." Have a read. I think you will enjoy it.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

The way I see the universe being fined tuned for life and intelligence is like this... Consider a top heavy vase sitting on a table next to a busy intersection. At the end of the day you would expect to find the vase either exactly where it was or on its side, possibly on the floor. But you wouldn't expect to find it perfectly perched with half the vase on the table and half of the vase off of the table. If you found the vase like that, you would conclude that someone set it there. That's our universe. It's so implausible that it could only have been done intentionally.

 

[ChemEngineer]

You’re arguing probabilities here…which is exactly what I’m doing by suggesting that the sheer number of planets, solar systems and galaxies in the universe would indicate that there are other places where this could have happened.

Why is my probability argument wrong but yours is right (ding)?

You are impressed by "trillions and trillions." Those are very small numbers. Let me give you some large numbers, once again, as I have done elsewhere.

Titin is the largest protein in humans. It has 38,138 amino acid residues in its sequence. They are in a precise sequence, assembling 20 different amino acids, all L form, not D, and all joined by peptide bonds, which have a 50/50 probability of forming as do non-peptide bonds.

So the original naturalistic synthesis of titin is 1/20 (amino acids) to the 38,138th power times 1/2 (D form) to the 38,138th power, times 1/2 (peptide bond) to the 38,138th power.

The product of this is 1 chance in 10 to the 72,458th power, as I recall.
One chance in 10 followed by 72,458 zeroes. Tell me again about how big of a number you think "trillions" is?

Incidentally, titin is only one of over 20,000 different proteins in the human body. So humans are clearly the product of intelligent design.
I'll leave it to any reader to decide who that intelligent designer is, but it is NOT nobody.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I got the idea from George Wald's lecture, "Life and Mind in the Universe." Have a read. I think you will enjoy it.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

The way I see the universe being fined tuned for life and intelligence is like this... Consider a top heavy vase sitting on a table next to a busy intersection. At the end of the day you would expect to find the vase either exactly where it was or on its side, possibly on the floor. But you wouldn't expect to find it perfectly perched with half the vase on the table and half of the vase off of the table. If you found the vase like that, you would conclude that someone set it there. That's our universe. It's so implausible that it could only have been done intentionally

*to you

Not to someone who has no use for that very weak analogy.

It's just the watchmaker fallacy. Dusty old nonsense.

 

[ding]

*to you

Not to someone who has no use for that very weak analogy.

It's just the watchmaker fallacy. Dusty old nonsense.

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I wouldn't have expected you to see it any other way.

Or any rational adult who is educated on the pile of fallacies attempted by religious philosophers over the millenia.

 

[ding]

Or any rational adult who is educated on the pile of fallacies attempted by religious philosophers over the millenia.

I couldn't be happier for you to believe that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I couldn't be happier for you to believe that.

Uh huh. The happiness oozes forth.

 

[ding]

Uh huh. The happiness oozes forth.

If you find something to be thankful for it does.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you find something to be thankful for it does.

Neat.

I advise you against thanking fictional characters for the results of your own work.

 

[ding]

Neat.

I advise you against thanking fictional characters for the results of your own work.

Emmons & McCullough, 2003
Slatcher& Pennebaker, 2006
Babyaket al., 2000
Shapiro & Schwartz, 2005
Achor, 2010

Say otherwise.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Emmons & McCullough, 2003
Slatcher& Pennebaker, 2006
Babyaket al., 2000
Shapiro & Schwartz, 2005
Achor, 2010

Say otherwise.

You know that isn't what I meant. But ding is gonna ding...

 

[ding]

You know that isn't what I meant. But ding is gonna ding...

I couldn't be happier for you to believe that.