Winning Life's Lotteries

[4gold]

Let's get to the point. Either the universe was created by chance (Nothing) or was designed (God). There is no third option. Mathematically and scientifically, it is impossible to disprove either notion. As long as you increase your time frame to infinity, the odds of something occurring by chance approaches one. And if it did not occur by chance, there is only one other option. So proof and disproof is not the point of this thread. Probabilities and likelihoods are the point of this thread.

As atheistic astronomer Chet Raymo describes, the odds of the space-energy density constant being so precise just moments after the Big Bang are 1 x 10^15 (that's a one with 15 zeroes after it). If the space-energy density constant had fluctuated by more than one part in 1 x 10^15, carbon-based life would not exist in this universe. As Raymo describes it, "The coin was flipped into the air 10^15 times, and it came down on its edge but once. If all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the Earth were possible universes...and only one of those grains of sand were a universe that allowed for the existence of intelligent life, then that one grain of sand is the universe we inhabit."

The immediate notion is to dismiss probabilities, because life does exist. The very odds of us even seeing the light from the star Arcturus from earth is 1 x 10^22, but we see it, so what difference do the odds make? Large numbers do not automatically make a phenomenom miraculous.

Winning one of life's lotteries (space-energy density) is amazing enough. But to win several lotteries in a row by chance, without ever losing, borders on absurdity. Numerically speaking, the relations between the gravitational constant, the mass of the proton, the electromagnetic constant, and the age of the universe that can support carbon-based life only hold for a very small epoch of time (millions of years), so it appears coincidental from our vantage point that we are even around to observe this phenomenom. If they had come together at any other epoch of the universe's history, we would not be around to observe them. We are very fortunate! Add to this that carbon-based life is far more inhabitable in a G-class star (fully 75% of all stars are uninhabitable M-class stars), on a rocky planet (most planets are gaseous), and 17 other planet-specific characteristics that must be within a certain, but not too improbable, range in order for carbon-based life to exist.

String theorists like Leonard Susskind acknowledge that accepting that this current universe formed by chance is bordering on absurd, and so they incorporate the multiverse theory along with String Theory. In fact, Stephen Weinberg notes that the Anthropic Principle, applied to String theory, "may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator."

Like I said, hitting one of life's lotteries is not miraculous, no matter how large the number. But hitting all of them, without losing even once...it begs the following questions:

• Could a reasonable human being conclude that the current universe formed by chance, and that there are no other universes? Or is multiverse theory a necessity to explain the current universe and still accept chance?

• Would we ever even theorize of multiverse theory if it wasn't so improbable that carbon-based life could exist by chance in this universe?

• Since it is physically impossible to test, observe, or verify either multiverse theory or God, why does the former qualify as science, while the other is qualified as faith?

• Not to invoke philosophy in a science forum, but using the watchmaker argument for design argument, at what point does a probability become too absurd to accept that it happened by chance? At what range of probabilities, must one conclude that something was designed?

[Scrotum]

What I mean is that if you see a watch lying in a field, you have two possibilities as to how that watch was made. One is that the watch was made by a watchmaker. The other is that the watch was made by an assembly of atoms.

Why do you assume that the watch has a watchmaker, instead of an assembly of atoms?

Eh?

It is an assambly of atoms. And then someone made it, what does that have to do with us? Or anything? What does that have to do with us evolving? Do you think we are a watch? Are we similar to a watch? Are we special?


Once again, and you seem not to understand this, The UNIVERSE does NOT exist BECAUSE of US, but WE exist BECAUSE of the UNIVERSE. You understand?

We evolved like we did, BECAUSE of the Universe, there is no chance, there is no luck, it just happend because of how the Universe look. We would not exist if it looked different, perhaps some other similar or totally a-similar creature would ask the same, do you understand? Or am I not explaining it good enough?

[4gold]

Eh?

It is an assambly of atoms. And then someone made it, what does that have to do with us? Or anything? What does that have to do with us evolving? Do you think we are a watch? Are we similar to a watch? Are we special?


Once again, and you seem not to understand this, The UNIVERSE does NOT exist BECAUSE of US, but WE exist BECAUSE of the UNIVERSE. You understand?

We evolved like we did, BECAUSE of the Universe, there is no chance, there is no luck, it just happend because of how the Universe look. We would not exist if it looked different, perhaps some other similar or totally a-similar creature would ask the same, do you understand? Or am I not explaining it good enough?

Maybe we should have reserved this question for the philosophy forum.

The argument of the watch is that there are only two possibilities for how that watch came to be formed that way: (1) a random assembly of atoms, or (2) it was designed by a watchmaker. Both are possiblities, so why do we always assume that the watch has a watchmaker?

Your argument about the universe and why we are here is sort of tangent to the argument, but it really argues past the point. The point of this thread is not why we are here, but in how we determine whether things are designed or arranged by chance.

[4gold]

Eh?

It is an assambly of atoms. And then someone made it, what does that have to do with us? Or anything? What does that have to do with us evolving? Do you think we are a watch? Are we similar to a watch? Are we special?


Once again, and you seem not to understand this, The UNIVERSE does NOT exist BECAUSE of US, but WE exist BECAUSE of the UNIVERSE. You understand?

We evolved like we did, BECAUSE of the Universe, there is no chance, there is no luck, it just happend because of how the Universe look. We would not exist if it looked different, perhaps some other similar or totally a-similar creature would ask the same, do you understand? Or am I not explaining it good enough?

Also, I wanted to point out that I agree with your conclusion, as it is outlined and in bold letters. It was never really the dispute, but I apologize if I gave the impression that it was.

The argument of this thread is: How do we determine if something is designed or assembled by chance? The obvious answer is by complexity and probability.

It is possible that the watch was made through a random assembly of atoms, but it is much more probable that a watchmaker created the watch.

[seventil]

Once again, and you seem not to understand this, The UNIVERSE does NOT exist BECAUSE of US, but WE exist BECAUSE of the UNIVERSE. You understand?

I would say that is a bit arrogant, as our current Life Origin theory makes many assumptions that haven't been verified yet. Perhaps when our ability to test this becomes better we can confirm with more certainty that it was not "Designed", persay - but who are we to say what the original cause of the universe was?

Surely, there are many explanations of why or how the universe could have been made for us, religion aside. While I'll agree they may not have as much logic or reasonable merit as alternate theories, our current uncertainty of the events that caused the universe at least has to allow for alternate hypothesis, does it not?

The main problem with your statement is the word "because" which implies some sort of philosophical or non-scientific state of "causing". You have invoked the argument of "cause" (first cause in this case) - and you state that you are aware of the nature of the cause - that we are a product of the universe, and it was not designed or created for us in someway. I think this is an assumption, at best, no?

Edit: I think it would be better stated:

The universe exists; we would not exist if the universe did not exist, as our nature of existence is defined and controlled by the universe we live in.

(and regarding the cause statement)

The universe exists; we can exist because of the universe. The universe can exist because of us. It is uncertain at this time.

[Furrowed Brow]

Could a reasonable human being conclude that the current universe formed by chance, and that there are no other universes?

Yes.

Or is multiverse theory a necessity to explain the current universe and still accept chance?

No.

The judgment that life is a special condition, of particular value is a value judgment. As we are conscious living beings its is very natural to place life as top of “our” list of priorities. So when we look at the strange statistical improbabilities present by science then the natural reaction is to say “wow, the odds are that high against life!”

So if you think life is an important and special attribute to the universe then there will be a need for explanation. However, if life is not a special attribute. That is to say we pass no value judgments, then it is just one way the universe organises itself. The anthropic principle then kicks in. The universe looks the way it does, because that's the universe we find ourselves in.

The mistake of deploying the mulitiverse argument is that it falls into the trap of accepting that life is a special case in need of special explanation. But life is no more a special case than any other phenomena.

[4gold]

But life is no more a special case than any other phenomena.

What do you mean by this? Surely, you'd agree that the formation of life is a far more complex process than, say, tides caused by the gravitational force of the moon.

[Cathar1950]

But life is no more a special case than any other phenomena.

What do you mean by this? Surely, you'd agree that the formation of life is a far more complex process than, say, tides caused by the gravitational force of the moon.

Tides caused by gravitational force is more complex then just tides.
The problem seems to be we try to make complex phenomena simple when in fact there are many things going on.
But complexity is perfectly natural.

[4gold]

Tides caused by gravitational force is more complex then just tides.
The problem seems to be we try to make complex phenomena simple when in fact there are many things going on.
But complexity is perfectly natural.

I agree with everything you posted. I was writing, and hoping, that FurrowedBrow would expand on this comment:

But life is no more a special case than any other phenomena.

Clearly, life is more complex than other phenomena such as tides caused by gravitational force, even though both are complex, so I suppose that complexity is not what he meant by "special".

My original post dealt with complexities, but I am unsure if that is what FurrowedBrow meant.

What do you think? Why are humans the most complex things we have yet observed in this universe? Does that make us special?

[Furrowed Brow]

But life is no more a special case than any other phenomena.

What do you mean by this? Surely, you'd agree that the formation of life is a far more complex process than, say, tides caused by the gravitational force of the moon.

I would. But why is complexity a sign of anything special? OK the human mind perhaps happens to be impressed by complexity. But is that an objective and overriding criteria for assessing the uniqueness of this universe more valuable than some other criteria?

Imagine - if you will - in all those multiverse an alternative universe that is less complex than this one, yet this universe in its own way is totally unique. No other multiverse is quite like it. Why is that universe more or less special than this one? If we judge it to be less special because it is less complex, then why are we so impressed with complexity?

If one says well complexity is a rarer than simplicity so it is special, well not really. There is a value judgment sneaking in there. Why is something that is more common not special? Silly question. I don’t think so. Can you answer it with a clear and objective answer that does not rely on the premise that rare things are more special. Economics theory of supply and demand says rare things will be more valuable because demand will outstrip supply. But there is no demand for a universe. And the only demand to see complexity in this universe is the human demand to see itself as an important aspect of this universe.

What this comes down to is that we can only observe this universe and it looks complex and we are impressed with this complexity. So what? If there are no multiverses and this is it, then if the universe had turned out different, the odds against that universe were greater than this, because that universe did not come to be. The probability argument is ultimately self defeating.

If you want to say this universe is less probable than some other non existent universe - then like what? If you want to say that all those possible non existent alternative universe would have been less complex than this one, then we are back to why is complexity special? Because it means we can exist. But that viewpoint is egocentric don’t you think, not objective.

[Scrotum]

What do you think? Why are humans the most complex things we have yet observed in this universe? Does that make us special?

In what way are we "the most complex things" on the planet?

Are we more "complex" then a chimpanze? Explain what you mean with "complex", and we work from there.