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?

[Goat]

One thing you have not shown is that out of all the various grains of sands, that you picked the one red grain. Can you show that? You know that whole range of sand it out there, but you only looked at the color of one grain of sand. How can you demonstrate that this is the only red grain of sand without actually looking at them?

Mathematically, we know that there is no other variation of the cosmological constant that would support a universe that could form anything -- either the other variations would cause the universe to collapse upon itself or cause the universe to expand so rapidly that nothing could form.

Out of 10^15 possibilities on the cosmological constant, this universe contains the only value possible for a universe that forms anything. It's the only red grain of sand, if you will. It's the coin than landed on its edge.

Do we?? We have a sample of one universe. How can we tell, actually?? I can speculate on the variations, but until we get some samples, it is all speculation.

[4gold]

But the analogy you present the prof is skewed. If we accept the analogy at face value then I’d agree with the Prof, but as I said before the analogy is not thoroughly worked through.

Ok. I’m going to adapt the analogy if you allow.

Imagine someone has laser etched a sentence on to each grain of sand in nano size lettering. One grain of sand on the beach has the sentence “this universe contains life - is True”, and all the other grains of sand say “This universe contains life - is false”. At random you pick a grain of sand off the beach, placing it under the electron microscope the sentence etched on its surface reads “This universe contains life - is true”.

The odds against that are staggeringly against. And that is why the analogy is skewed.

Now lets tweak the analogy. Every grain of sand now has a list of sentences. The list is finite but very very long. Say 10^15 sentences. On each grain of sand only one sentence says “……..is true” and all the other sentences says “……..is false”. The list of sentences is the same for each grain of sand, the only parameter that changes is the sentence which says it is true. So every grain has only one true sentence, and the true sentence is different for every grain.

Now pick any grain of sand at random, and you will find one true sentence, the odds against that particular sentence being true are staggeringly against, but we know with absolute certainty there will be one true sentence.

This analogy is now not skewed to favour any one result over another.

Now keep hold of this adjusted analogy, and apply it to Raymo’s argument. Raymo’s grain of sand is this universe, and he has located a true sentence that only applies to this universe. The sentence is “this universe can support life is true“, and for all the other possible universe this sentences is false.

The odds against that particular sentence being true are indeed staggering, but the odds that there will be a unique feature of this universe, is certain. Therefore pointing to a unique feature of this universe and saying that the odds against it are so staggering we can only infer some kind of interference to beat the odds, is plain confused. The odds are certain.

If one then feels the urge to say…yes but this feature is the one with life…then statistically speaking…so what?

If we had a prior preferred answer, then picked the one grain of sand at random that matched that answer, then that would be a truly spectacular result. But that is not the way Raymo.s ratio works. We already have the grain of sand picked for us - if we decide that we prefer that true sentence over all the other possibilities, that is nice for us, but we have chosen that sentence to be our preference after the fact.

Let me demonstrate why I think your analogy does not work in our present situation.

If you have 10^15 sentences, one that is true and 999,999,999,999 that are false, the odds of picking one grain of sand up and saying, "Wow! I found the one grain of sand with x being true!" is not special, I agree. But this analogy assumes that the sentences on the grain of sand have no effect on the sand itself.

In other words, if the laser-etched sentences were actually programmed instructions in the grains of sand that we were able to observe under a microscope, we would expect the instructions to look something like this:

If x=1, grain of sand must be red in color

If 1<x<500,000,000,000, grain of sand must be white in color

If 500,000,00,000<x<10^15, grain of sand must be black in color

To pick up a grain of sand and say, "Wow! This grain of sand has the laser-etched number of 750,499 is unique! No other grain of sand has this number" is not special. But to pick up a grain of sand and say, "Wow, this grain of sand is red! All the other possibilities are white or black!" is special, because of the output of the one instruction.

[4gold]

Do we?? We have a sample of one universe. How can we tell, actually?? I can speculate on the variations, but until we get some samples, it is all speculation.

Do you disagree with the mathematical calculations of the astronomer Raymo? Do you think there is a variable he is missing or possibly not aware of, because this is the only universe we are able to observe?

[Goat]

Do we?? We have a sample of one universe. How can we tell, actually?? I can speculate on the variations, but until we get some samples, it is all speculation.

Do you disagree with the mathematical calculations of the astronomer Raymo? Do you think there is a variable he is missing or possibly not aware of, because this is the only universe we are able to observe?

Why, I believe he can not back up with experimental data his assumptions. Can you show he can?

All his calculations do is show we can pull lots of numbers from the air from out limited knowledge.

[4gold]

Why, I believe he can not back up with experimental data his assumptions. Can you show he can?

All his calculations do is show we can pull lots of numbers from the air from out limited knowledge.

Interestingly enough, scientists are planning on recreating the Big Bang, on a much smaller scale, of course. This should be able to validate or invalidate his theory.

But until this experiment is conducted, I can probably find the foundations for his numbers. They weren't just pulled out of the air. Is that what you are asking for?

[Goat]

Why, I believe he can not back up with experimental data his assumptions. Can you show he can?

All his calculations do is show we can pull lots of numbers from the air from out limited knowledge.

Interestingly enough, scientists are planning on recreating the Big Bang, on a much smaller scale, of course. This should be able to validate or invalidate his theory.

But until this experiment is conducted, I can probably find the foundations for his numbers. They weren't just pulled out of the air. Is that what you are asking for?

Can you show the experimental data?? Not yet. It might be that it can be, it might be that it can't be. I am sure in absence of experimental data those assumptions can not be verified.

[4gold]

Can you show the experimental data?? Not yet. It might be that it can be, it might be that it can't be. I am sure in absence of experimental data those assumptions can not be verified.

This is a science forum. If you are challenging his assumptions, I'd be glad to go find them and we can debate whether the assumptions are reasonable or not. But I'd rather not go find the study if you have no intentions of challenging the science behind his numbers.

[Goat]

Can you show the experimental data?? Not yet. It might be that it can be, it might be that it can't be. I am sure in absence of experimental data those assumptions can not be verified.

This is a science forum. If you are challenging his assumptions, I'd be glad to go find them and we can debate whether the assumptions are reasonable or not. But I'd rather not go find the study if you have no intentions of challenging the science behind his numbers.

Yes, let's see what his assumptions are, and see if what the experimental data for his assumptions are.

I mean, it might be an attempt, but I am just as skeptical about string theory. They have not been able to test string theory either. They have done one minor prediction with Loop Quantum Gravity.. but one minor prediction is a long way from being tested properly. However, it passed the first hurdle.

[Furrowed Brow]

Let me demonstrate why I think your analogy does not work in our present situation.

If you have 10^15 sentences, one that is true and 999,999,999,999 that are false, the odds of picking one grain of sand up and saying, "Wow! I found the one grain of sand with x being true!" is not special, I agree. But this analogy assumes that the sentences on the grain of sand have no effect on the sand itself.

That’s not quite what I said.

In other words, if the laser-etched sentences were actually programmed instructions in the grains of sand that we were able to observe under a microscope, we would expect the instructions to look something like this:

If x=1, grain of sand must be red in colour

If 1<x<500,000,000,000, grain of sand must be white in colour

If 500,000,00,000<x<10^15, grain of sand must be black in colour

To pick up a grain of sand and say, "Wow! This grain of sand has the laser-etched number of 750,499 is unique! No other grain of sand has this number" is not special. But to pick up a grain of sand and say, "Wow, this grain of sand is red! All the other possibilities are white or black!" is special, because of the output of the one instruction.

On that is instruction X. And in the case of Ramos’s ratio.

But again two point still stand. Your analysis is yet to tackle them head on.

1/ If Raymo’s ratio was a different value, then this universe with life would not exist. For the sake of argument I am agreeing this point. But the universe that might be produced from all the other possible values of Raymo’s ratio will all have their own unique histories. And all they need is some unique feature present within their own history and not present in any other universe for Raymo’s ratio to be meaningless.

2/ Raymo has selected one number. But physics has many numbers, ratios and constant’s. Again we can apply the same methodology. Lets say that every constant and ratio is equally finely tuned as we are saying Raymo’s ratio is tuned. Now we have an even bigger than 10^15. How big that number is I don’t know. But for argument sake lets say it is 10^1000. So out of 10^1000 possible universe only this universe is the “red grain”. Which is to say it is the only universe that contains life.

It does not matter how big 10^n becomes. The size of the number deflect away from another part of the statistical analysis. We have to know how many of those other universes also have their own unique feature. To accept the “red grain” analogy” in the way you suggested is to accept that no other universe has in anyway their own unique feature. And thatas I continue to maintain is prejudging the issue, and is a bias that keeps creeping into the analysis.

So let x = 1 the grain of sand must be red. Thus if only one grain of sand =1 then as you say it looks special. But you are using only one variable. Which is a good technical way of expressing the weakness of your analysis. For you are only ever considering one variable that applies to this universe and not alternative variables that apply to alternative universe.

So along with x = 1 let there be variables w, x, y , z….etc. How many vraibles there might be we do not know. And then

X = 1, then grain of sand must be red
W = 1 then grain of sand must be square
Y = 1 then grain of sand must be made of gold
Z = 1. Then grain of sand must be translucent.
…etc

If each variable has a value 1 for only one universe, then the fact that there is a universe where x = 1, is statistically meaningless. If we do not know if such variables exist or could exist, but they are not discounted a priori, then the Raymo ratio is still statisically meaningless.