Eternal Questions

[Fisherking]

:book:

Science has demonstrated that conciseness and intent effect outcome.

We also know that life exists, it is found on this planet in extremes from undersea volcanic vents to frozen wastes.

However, the mathematical odd of even the simplest life existing is so infinitely miniscule, anywhere in the universe, as to be deemed imposable.

Yet we see the building blocks of life everywhere we look, even on other planets.

Mathematically, the universe is hardly old enough to contain molecules...

Is there a creative force at work in the universe?

[Ironside]

However, the mathematical odd of even the simplest life existing is so infinitely miniscule, anywhere in the universe, as to be deemed imposable.

Data points of known life is 1. Thus it's impossible to draw any mathematical conclusions, since some of the starting defintions are unknown. For example, the number of stars in known universe is about 10^20. We're uncertain about the full existance of life (Europa, Mars etc.) for 1 system.


Yet we see the building blocks of life everywhere we look, even on other planets.

Mathematically, the universe is hardly old enough to contain molecules...

Molecules formes pretty much by default as long as you have activation energy and a high enough atom concentration, so I'm not sure on what math you're refering to.


Is there a creative force at work in the universe?

Indeed, we trapped in an advanced sim that's been running since the beginning of universe. Or not. Simply put, if this creator only affected the starting conditions, the question becomes mostly irrelevant, since it cannot be determined from inside the system. If it's a more active process, then science can never describe it, since it's a breaking of the initial rules. That's one way to give proof of a creator.

So, not only does God play dice, he can hide in them.

To add my personal opinion: The question is irrelevant, since it won't be given an answer.

[Beskar]

We are part of EA's new game, Sims 5. You only think you are alive, when you are really a computer simulation.

[al Roumi]

We are part of EA's new game, Sims 5. You only think you are alive, when you are really a computer simulation.

Aren't you plagiarising Douglas Adams there? :wink:

[Beskar]

Aren't you plagiarising Douglas Adams there? :wink:

No, the Matrix.

Douglas Adams would be that we were created as a giant living thinking computer paid for by Mice to discover the answer of life, the universe and everything in it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, the Matrix.

Douglas Adams would be that we were created as a giant living thinking computer paid for by Mice to discover the answer of life, the universe and everything in it.

No, we were created to discover the Question.

Which I, personally, think is genius.

[Beskar]

No, we were created to discover the Question.

Which I, personally, think is genius.

Wait wait.. so we got tthe answer which is 42, and now we need the question?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wait wait.. so we got tthe answer which is 42, and now we need the question?

Yes. You haven't read the series, have you?

[Beskar]

Yes. You haven't read the series, have you?

Not read all of it, that reminds me, I was going to use a quote from it on here, where they proved the existence of God and God goes "That is impossible!" and ends up disappearing in a puff of logic.

I watched the entire TV series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy_%28TV_series%29) though, which ends on the pre-historic Earth, when they crash land with all the barbers, 2nd rate members of society, etc and the primitive humans are all spelling out "42".

[Ironside]

No, we were created to discover the Question.

Which I, personally, think is genius.

I prefer the Asimov version. The question is "How do you reverse the direction of entropy?" And the eventual response from the vast supercomputer at the end of time for the universe is "Let there be light!" And there was light...

Haven't thought of that one in that way before though. I agree that's one brilliant way of putting in the question of the meaning of life.

Edit: And not talking about the biological answer. It's easy and true but very dull.

[Fisherking]

Fred Hoyle postulated that the likelihood of life in the universe is near that of a tornado passing through a junkyard and assembling a 747.

Albert Einstein gave it a better chance. He said it was as likely as taking apart a watch, putting the pieces in a box, shaking it and removing the assembled watch.

Both of these famous men of science believed there was a greater force at work in the universe.

The more advanced science uncovers, the more it seems to point to some guiding force in the universe.

Put another way, the more we know the more physics and metaphysics seem to be linked.

[CBR]

Fred Hoyle postulated that the likelihood of life in the universe is near that of a tornado passing through a junkyard and assembling a 747.
Also called Hoyle's fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy


Albert Einstein gave it a better chance. He said it was as likely as taking apart a watch, putting the pieces in a box, shaking it and removing the assembled watch.
He was not a biologist was he? Would he have had same opinion today, with 429 extrasolar planets discovered so far?


CBR

[Fisherking]

Also called Hoyle's fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy


He was not a biologist was he? Would he have had same opinion today, with 429 extrasolar planets discovered so far?





CBR

No but mathematical odd are relied upon to predict much of what we know.

However unlikely mathematically, life seems to go out of its way to happen.

I assume you have some better more reasonable explanation?

[Viking]

No but mathematical odd are relied upon to predict much of what we know.

However unlikely mathematically, life seems to go out of its way to happen.

I assume you have some better more reasonable explanation?

We do not even know for sure how life on Earth came about, so which probabilities do you speak of?

[CBR]

No but mathematical odd are relied upon to predict much of what we know.
And Hoyle seems to have been off when it comes to the odds. Even if we assume the mathematical odds seemed right at the time of his statement, things have changed as we know more now so the odds are different.


I assume you have some better more reasonable explanation?Explanation for what? I cannot calculate the "right" odds but what I do know is we don't know much since we have not visited other systems not have powerful enough telescopes to detect signs of life. We have not even enough information to truly rule out life on other planets in our own solar system. In other words it is going to involve a whole lot of speculation to claim the chances of life are small.

I don't see the point in focusing too much on statements made by dead scientists that also seems to have involved elements that were outside their own field.

If we can find the building blocks of life in space (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8208307.stm) then maybe life is not so unlikely?


CBR

[Fisherking]

We do not even know for sure how life on Earth came about, so which probabilities do you speak of?


The mathematical probabilities of carbon forming a strand of DNA. That is only slightly harder than forming a protein chain for something like a virus.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not trying to prove the existence of a God sitting on a throne in some heaven.

There would just seem to be some order or consciousness holding the universe together. If not, then why does observation and intent effect partial behavior?

[drone]

Sometime I think we limit the possibilities of other life-forms by sticking to the earth-standard carbon based model. I think it's possible that on another planet with a different chemical makeup, life-forms may use another element as it's base, with a completely different set of chemical reaction to function as life.

[Myrddraal]

Data points of known life is 1. Thus it's impossible to draw any mathematical conclusions, since some of the starting defintions are unknown.

I couldn't agree more. It's impossible to draw mathematical conclusions. We can however theorise about what is necessary for life to come into existence, and try to get a rough idea of the probability of each of those stages completing successfully. RND/DNA universe and all that. The bit I struggle with is how either of those two, the RNA universe of the DNA universe, could ever spontaneously come into existence. I'm not saying they couldn't, it just boggles the mind.

As for the creator question, isn't it a little bit redundant? If God created the universe, then he created the laws of physics. If God created the universe, then he created those mighty forces that brought together dust clouds into stars and planets. If God created the universe, perhaps he designed those laws of physics, the distributions of mass in the universe, everything we know, precisely so that it would form life?

An analogy (a poor one, but hopefully it illustrates the point):
Is creation is like a river carving a valley, simply a product of forces of nature?
Is creation God making the river source, which then goes on to carve a valley?
Is creation God making the river source & the rock and earth so that a valley would be carved?

Personally I believe that if the ultimate creator of the universe created everything then saying "God didn't make earth, gravity did" is a self contradiction.

[ajaxfetish]

No but mathematical odd are relied upon to predict much of what we know.
And the odds here are . . . let's see, we have life on this earth, so that's one . . . don't know whether there's life elsewhere yet, don't know how many planets there are in the universe.

Hmm . . . so we get ≥1/x

I'm not sure we can do much with those odds.

Ajax

[Ironside]

I couldn't agree more. It's impossible to draw mathematical conclusions. We can however theorise about what is necessary for life to come into existence, and try to get a rough idea of the probability of each of those stages completing successfully. RND/DNA universe and all that. The bit I struggle with is how either of those two, the RNA universe of the DNA universe, could ever spontaneously come into existence. I'm not saying they couldn't, it just boggles the mind.


The irony is that multicelluar life is mindboggingly hard (probably harder than creating life itself, based on the current insufficient data) yet for us it doesn't seem that hard to cooperate.
Also remember that modern life has had billions of years to develop to the current life forms. Any primitive cell structure would not survive until today, or survive for long if created today.

Drone, the significant advantage coal have is that it can easily bind to 4 different atoms and also easily form double bonds or higher. Silica for example doesn't form double bonds as easy. So while non-carbon life cannot be ruled out, carbon is definitly the most flexible molecule when it comes to create chains and advanced molecules.

[gaelic cowboy]

Somewhere around 13 or 14 billion years ago our universe was made or made it self that much we do know or at least think we know. So thats a fair length of time for complex elements and even more complex lifeforms.

I just dug up some old science books these figures coulds be out of date but the figures quoted are that our solar system by mass terms is made of around

70.13% Hydrogen
27.87% Helium
0.91% Oxygen

Straight away water can be formed which is a building block of our lifecycle water has some very important features.

1 As a liquid it can protect it from destructive ultraviolet radiation.
2 Waters ability to exist as both a gas, solid and a liquid allow it to spread all over the planet.
3 The ability of ice to float also means our oceans don't freeze solid very important.

Taking undersea vents and solar energy into account and a 4.5 billion year old earth its plenty time for me to be here typing on a computer.

[Viking]

The mathematical probabilities of carbon forming a strand of DNA. That is only slightly harder than forming a protein chain for something like a virus.

With so much unkown, I don't get how anyone could produce such probabilities - as long as being reliable is a goal in itself. I can indeed never remember to have read that the "probability of life arising" was small and that this is a problem for the possibility of life elsewhere.



If not, then why does observation and intent effect partial behavior?

Sorry?

[gaelic cowboy]

If not, then why does observation and intent effect partial behavior?

Quantam theory explains most of that but it is beyond my understanding

[The Stranger]

it's beyond everyones understanding...

[gaelic cowboy]

it's beyond everyones understanding...

:laugh4:

[CrossLOPER]

We are part of EA's new game, Sims 5. You only think you are alive, when you are really a computer simulation.
I think the person controlling me is a five year old.