• We hope all of you have a great holiday season and an incredible New Year. Thanks so much for being part of the Space community!

How Does Life Come From Randomness?

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,354
941
3,560
I read post #1 in this thread. Somehow the discussion seems more like BB cosmology ideas for the origin of life in the universe but does not seem to be abiogenesis science. On Earth we have a fossil record that shows biogenesis is at work in the production of living organisms, and death in the fossil record too as well as mass extinction.
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,863
1,558
5,060
I read post #1 in this thread. Somehow the discussion seems more like BB cosmology ideas for the origin of life in the universe but does not seem to be abiogenesis science.
BBT gives the remarkable broad picture on how the atoms and molecules, including their rough composition, came about to make up our universe. Planetary formation theories help show how planets have those compositions, roughly.

Abiogenesis is the intermediary step to go from chemical to whatever it is we choose to call "life".
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,354
941
3,560
BB model has the CMBR for example as observational evidence. Planetary formation models have stars with dust disks observed. Q: Where is abiogenesis observed at work on Earth today, our solar system, or among the exoplanets documented now?

Helio, your post #27 seems to confuse observations supporting BB like CMBR and dust disks with observations of abiogenesis at work in science today. The fossil record is not abiogenesis at work.
 
How Does Life Come From Randomness? This is the question.

"A statement by the seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes. “I think; therefore I am” was the end of the search Descartes conducted for a statement that could not be doubted. He found that he could not doubt that he himself existed, as he was the one doing the doubting in the first place. "

Therefore we can accept the assumption that there is life, We represent life.

There remains the question "has life come from randomness.

I would like to return to the following:

In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than its haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy.

I submit that this description of "randomness" is preferable.


This reduces the question to "Did life arise by chance"?

Since we exist, the answer must be “yes”. The only alternative is to have some supernatural ant deciding to initiate life, in which case there is still the chance whether it did or not.

Thus the question is answered. Finito.

Cat :)
"In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than its haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy."
Here is the full quote from your post, no 10;

"In the common parlance, randomness is the apparent lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but since they often follow a probability distribution, the frequency of different outcomes over numerous events (or "trials") is predictable. For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than its haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy. "

"A random sequence of events, symbols or steps often has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination."

This is presupposing you can have a random sequence of events. Just because it's unintelligible doesn't mean it's random'.

"Individual random events"

Same assumption again

"but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4"

Not true. It only tends towards occurring twice as often and only equals twice as often after an infinite number of throws.

"randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome"

Randomness (alledged) is not a measurement, it's a phenomenon. Outcomes are not uncertain, outcomes follow cause and effect and the laws of physics. Uncertainty arises when you prod a system around and have non-perfect measuring tools and insufficient computing power. Reality is not uncertain it's precise, the uncertainty is in the observer's mind.

"rather than its haphazardness"

As above, reality is not haphazard.

I submit that this description of "randomness" is rubbish.

This reduces the question to "Did life arise by chance"?
Since the above is rubbish then the statement being reduced may not be valid. Best to stick with the posters original question until some clarification here.
 
I read post #1 in this thread. Somehow the discussion seems more like BB cosmology ideas for the origin of life in the universe but does not seem to be abiogenesis science. On Earth we have a fossil record that shows biogenesis is at work in the production of living organisms, and death in the fossil record too as well as mass extinction.
"biogenesis", so where did the first living thing come from to start the process of reproduction if no abiogenesis?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,354
941
3,560
David-J-Franks, I did not explain where life came from, just that abiogenesis does not have observation in science supporting that nature does this like the CMBR is observed that supports the BB cosmology. A fundamental rule of science is observation. Helio's post #27 seems to confuse observational evidence supporting other models with abiogenesis belief, a belief that has testing today in labs (by intelligence) but lacks observations in nature showing abiogenesis at work transforming non-living matter into life. A good example is the protoplanetary disk reported now by ALMA at IRS 63, https://phys.org/news/2020-10-astronomers-evidence-planets-infant-stars.html

The disk dust mass is considered to be about 0.5 Jupiter mass or 159 earth masses. This dust disk can be seen in nature. I have not observed abiogenesis taking place in a warm little pond as an example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
BB model has the CMBR for example as observational evidence. Planetary formation models have stars with dust disks observed. Q: Where is abiogenesis observed at work on Earth today, our solar system, or among the exoplanets documented now?

Helio, your post #27 seems to confuse observations supporting BB like CMBR and dust disks with observations of abiogenesis at work in science today. The fossil record is not abiogenesis at work.
Abiogenesis hasn't been observed at work on Earth today, It only needed to happen once!
The fossil record is not abiogenesis at work.
The fossil record doesn't disprove abiogenesis either, it's compatible with both views.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
That is a fair idea David-J-Franks. Just keep in mind that no one observed abiogenesis happen once but we do see dust disks around stars :)
Of course no one can ever see a first one off abiogenesis. At the big bang there was no life (hope we both agree on that) but there is now. The only rational explanation for this is abiogenesis. How that happened is what's being debated here now ie by randomness or by determinism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,354
941
3,560
David-J-Franks. Here is my observation about determinism. It opens the door to intelligent design in nature - my opinion. Starting with the postulate of abiogenesis to explain the fossil record observed, the fossil record itself does not show the postulated abiogenesis event but demonstrates biogenesis and death, often massive death observed in the fossil record like mass burial sites. When you factor death into the abiogenesis hypothesis because the fossil record clearly shows death in the strata (thus observations), that raises questions like when did death appear on earth in relation to the postulated abiogenesis event that created life's last common ancestor from which the fossil record sprang? Death can change how often abiogenesis must take place on earth to explain the fossil record we observe today.
 
Makes all the sense. Our world exists out of so many possibilities, where it may not have existed..or just in some other form, this itself shows a certain order that has been followed. Though I believe there could've been multiple orders since the inception of these chain reactions. And we and the world we live in is just one of the several possibilities where a few details would've altered, minor or maybe major ones.
Sorry for the delay in replying and welcome from me.

You've worded things nicely, the only thing I would differ on is your use of the word inception. The statement matter-energy can't be created or destroyed. means something has always existed and because it's in motion now means it's always been in motion - so no inception. In other words, existence is eternal and the chain reactions as you phrase them are therefore also eternal with no inception. My own strange thoughts!

If you want to follow a thread click the 'Watch' button to receive emails of new posts. Enjoy :)
 
Aug 14, 2020
625
119
1,060
I think you are misunderstanding. In my post, no 20, which you quoted, I was not talking about randomness, (Einsteins dice is another subject) I was putting counter-arguments to statements from your post, no 12, which are -

"All possible paths are already there, already exist, already taken, in an infinite Universe (U) (1). All possible potentials are fulfilled (1). All possible dimensionality is encompassed and incorporated (1)."

and -

The infinite Universe (U) (1) of an infinite many finite universes (u) (0) will have it both ways, all possible ways, at once.

In response I'll say again;

All the possibilities a universe (u) can take on, belongs to the 'continuum infinity set', this set is infinitely bigger than the 'countable infinity' set of all the universes (u), which you are calling the Universe (U). Therefore all possible universes cannot all fit into the Universe. It's simple arithmetic. In other words, all possible things that can happen don't happen, there aren't enough universes (u) in the Universe (U). so your statements can't be true. :)
It shouldn't be amazing to me how you've pretty much ignored every post I've done on this site. Do a count on the infinity (the infinitesimal space / infinite mass) of the Big Crunch / (the infinite space / infinitesimal mass of the) Big Hole. Count it up David! Come up with a count of more than my binary's '1'. Count the number of infinitesimal points that are, in fact, an infinity of finite universes (u) (0 (0-point)). Go ahead David, find some beginning point and start counting the infinitesimal points that will make up the head of a 0-point needle (leading edge) point. Don't forget you will have to bypass all the multi-dimensionality of a multiverse. Count the infinite depth of a infinitely flat Universe. Fold it infinitely and count the number of vertical planes you come up with. Don't forget to account for "elasticity."

Switching dimensionality, count the number of horizons (h) in the Horizon (H) of the Universe (U), that is the Horizon of the Universe, the Universal Horizon. Count them David since you are so anxious to do some counting.

Before you start on counting the horizons of the Horizon, try practicing on the horizons of Earth's horizon. Count the total number of horizons in Earth's horizon. Do your best to get beyond a provable '1'.

Finite is relative and local, infinite / infinitesimal / infinity is not. My favorite book on Chaos Theory speaks of layering to the Universe as do other books and articles now. What divides hyper-finite layers, hyper-finite planes, from merely finite? Layers of infinitely thin flat and smooth horizons. I can do the description with elasticity's 4-dimensional expansive / contractive bubbling (ballooning). Most, now, appear to prefer to describe a wormhole or tunneling, effect. Just different dimensionalities from different branches of physics.

Maybe if you put some thought to an ever continuing existence of Big Crunch (/ Big Hole (Space) (Vacuum)) Universe (U) (1), you might begin to see the most irresistible force (the Vortex (1) of [countless] vortices (0)) of that most immovable object. Move from equivalent physics to equivalent physics, equivalent dimensionality to equivalent dimensionality. Even from equivalent analogy to equivalent analogy. Give yourself some arguable corroboration. It is via the infinity of finite universes that all possible paths are taken (including all possible decision points being decided differentially), all possible potentials are fulfilled, and so on. It is only via the infinity of finites that that which is impossible, as to any single space and time, is made possible. I see it, the infinite Universe (U) (1), as being far too relativistic to really exist (outside a [photo-universe] that is), unless there is exchange within the infinity, unless there is casual movement between universes, unless the pathing is open, unless the potentials are capable of pursuing.... Unless there is animation (life) to the damn thing.
 
Last edited:
It shouldn't be amazing to me how you've pretty much ignored every post I've done on this site. Do a count on the infinity (the infinitesimal space / infinite mass) of the Big Crunch / (the infinite space / infinitesimal mass of the) Big Hole. Count it up David! Come up with a count of more than my binary's '1'. Count the number of infinitesimal points that are, in fact, an infinity of finite universes (u) (0 (0-point)). Go ahead David, find some beginning point and start counting the infinitesimal points that will make up the head of a 0-point needle (leading edge) point. Don't forget you will have to bypass all the multi-dimensionality of a multiverse. Count the infinite depth of a infinitely flat Universe. Fold it infinitely and count the number of vertical planes you come up with. Don't forget to account for "elasticity."

Switching dimensionality, count the number of horizons (h) in the Horizon (H) of the Universe (U), that is the Horizon of the Universe, the Universal Horizon. Count them David since you are so anxious to do some counting.

Before you start on counting the horizons of the Horizon, try practicing on the horizons of Earth's horizon. Count the total number of horizons in Earth's horizon. Do your best to get beyond a provable '1'.

Finite is relative and local, infinite / infinitesimal / infinity is not. My favorite book on Chaos Theory speaks of layering to the Universe as do other books and articles now. What divides hyper-finite layers, hyper-finite planes, from merely finite? Layers of infinitely thin flat and smooth horizons. I can do the description with elasticity's 4-dimensional expansive / contractive bubbling (ballooning). Most, now, appear to prefer to describe a wormhole or tunneling, effect. Just different dimensionalities from different branches of physics.

Maybe if you put some thought to an ever continuing existence of Big Crunch (/ Big Hole (Space) (Vacuum)) Universe (U) (1), you might begin to see the most irresistible force (the Vortex (1) of [countless] vortices (0)) of that most immovable object. Move from equivalent physics to equivalent physics, equivalent dimensionality to equivalent dimensionality. Even from equivalent analogy to equivalent analogy. Give yourself some arguable corroboration. It is via the infinity of finite universes that all possible paths are taken (including all possible decision points being decided differentially), all possible potentials are fulfilled, and so on. It is only via the infinity of finites that that which is impossible, as to any single space and time, is made possible. I see it, the infinite Universe (U) (1), as being far too relativistic to really exist, unless there is exchange within the infinity, unless there is casual movement between universes, unless the pathing is open, unless the potentials are capable of pursuing; unless there is animation (life) to the damn thing.
It shouldn't be amazing to me how you've pretty much ignored every post I've done on this site.
I have made more responses to your posts than any only one else on this thread! I've read all your posts. I may have misunderstood you, but certainly NOT ignored you.

I live in the dis- United Kingdom it's very late here now ( nearly 04:00) so am going to bed. Will respond tomorrow. :)
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,863
1,558
5,060
"but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4"

Not true. It only tends towards occurring twice as often and only equals twice as often after an infinite number of throws.
An infinity number of throws isn't required since we have math and understand Lim--> infinity. Certainly a few die rolls may not often reveal the above, but that wasn't what was being said. There are only 11 combinations possible and 6 of those produce a 7, only 3 produce a 4.

Randomness (alledged) is not a measurement, it's a phenomenon. Outcomes are not uncertain, outcomes follow cause and effect and the laws of physics. Uncertainty arises when you prod a system around and have non-perfect measuring tools and insufficient computing power. Reality is not uncertain it's precise, the uncertainty is in the observer's mind.
Math can treat things perfectly but physics and Vegas know no such math can be applied to the craps table. They know the odds. I recall, decades ago, when physicists held a convention and Vegas, but the tables were far too empty to invite them back. :)

The Vegas outcomes appear to be random, but they do follow the rules of probability. Newton's laws aren't violated regardless of complexity of the use of cards or die, and we can still use the term "random" to describe what is apparent. Perhaps there is a better term that may suit your definition.
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
Helio, would you agree that we have to know "everything" (meaning position, direction, momentum, mass, friction etc) about a particle to predict "everything" (meaning ditto) about its future? I am coming back to the idea that you cannot know where something is going without knowing things about its present - the investigation of which changes its present?

Cat :)
 
An infinity number of throws isn't required since we have math and understand Lim--> infinity. Certainly a few die rolls may not often reveal the above, but that wasn't what was being said. There are only 11 combinations possible and 6 of those produce a 7, only 3 produce a 4.

Math can treat things perfectly but physics and Vegas know no such math can be applied to the craps table. They know the odds. I recall, decades ago, when physicists held a convention and Vegas, but the tables were far too empty to invite them back. :)

The Vegas outcomes appear to be random, but they do follow the rules of probability. Newton's laws aren't violated regardless of complexity of the use of cards or die, and we can still use the term "random" to describe what is apparent. Perhaps there is a better term that may suit your definition.
The calculated probability can be exact, but you cannot be sure the practical results will be an exact match to the calculated probability until you've thrown an infinite number of throws. There is, of course, a chance you can get the exact match after an unpredictable finite number of throws. Look carefully at the wording;

"For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4"

"when throwing two dice," This is talking about the practical aspect, not the calculated odds, so when throwing 2 dice, to be sure of getting the exact odds you would have to throw an infinite number of dice. (except a match by chance every so often).

So, what was being said ("a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4") is not true. It only tends towards occurring twice as often, and only equals twice as often after an infinite number of throws. (except a match by chance every so often).

It may seem trivial, but Catastrophe was putting it forward as scientific backing for his arguments, so it should be a bit more accurate. The people who wrote that are supposed to be experts so they should also know better, That's why I picked on it, the whole article was riddled with faults.

Since the science we are talking about here is whether nature is exact or fuzzy, it does matter a lot.

Also, Catastrophe appeared to call my posts "useless semantic drivel" in post, no 60, on the thread; https://forums.space.com/threads/black-holes-and-the-evolution-of-the-universe.32932/page-3 so I don't expect any useless drivel from him.

"The Vegas outcomes appear to be random, but they do follow the rules of probability."
Not quite sure what you mean there, sounds like it's against Einsteins "God does not play dice" quote. I'm struggling with this one , so more discussion would be welcome. Anyway, my take on it is as follows. I don't think reality is following probabilities, I think it's all exactly clockwork. I think 'rules of probability' are just a human construct to help us predict things.
"Newton's laws aren't violated regardless of complexity of the use of cards or die,"
Exactly, same as for your 1 gram of hydrogen, that's determinism.
"and we can still use the term "random" to describe what is apparent."
Not strictly in science, but yes in everyday language. :)
 
It shouldn't be amazing to me how you've pretty much ignored every post I've done on this site. Do a count on the infinity (the infinitesimal space / infinite mass) of the Big Crunch / (the infinite space / infinitesimal mass of the) Big Hole. Count it up David! Come up with a count of more than my binary's '1'. Count the number of infinitesimal points that are, in fact, an infinity of finite universes (u) (0 (0-point)). Go ahead David, find some beginning point and start counting the infinitesimal points that will make up the head of a 0-point needle (leading edge) point. Don't forget you will have to bypass all the multi-dimensionality of a multiverse. Count the infinite depth of a infinitely flat Universe. Fold it infinitely and count the number of vertical planes you come up with. Don't forget to account for "elasticity."

Switching dimensionality, count the number of horizons (h) in the Horizon (H) of the Universe (U), that is the Horizon of the Universe, the Universal Horizon. Count them David since you are so anxious to do some counting.

Before you start on counting the horizons of the Horizon, try practicing on the horizons of Earth's horizon. Count the total number of horizons in Earth's horizon. Do your best to get beyond a provable '1'.

Finite is relative and local, infinite / infinitesimal / infinity is not. My favorite book on Chaos Theory speaks of layering to the Universe as do other books and articles now. What divides hyper-finite layers, hyper-finite planes, from merely finite? Layers of infinitely thin flat and smooth horizons. I can do the description with elasticity's 4-dimensional expansive / contractive bubbling (ballooning). Most, now, appear to prefer to describe a wormhole or tunneling, effect. Just different dimensionalities from different branches of physics.

Maybe if you put some thought to an ever continuing existence of Big Crunch (/ Big Hole (Space) (Vacuum)) Universe (U) (1), you might begin to see the most irresistible force (the Vortex (1) of [countless] vortices (0)) of that most immovable object. Move from equivalent physics to equivalent physics, equivalent dimensionality to equivalent dimensionality. Even from equivalent analogy to equivalent analogy. Give yourself some arguable corroboration. It is via the infinity of finite universes that all possible paths are taken (including all possible decision points being decided differentially), all possible potentials are fulfilled, and so on. It is only via the infinity of finites that that which is impossible, as to any single space and time, is made possible. I see it, the infinite Universe (U) (1), as being far too relativistic to really exist (outside a [photo-universe] that is), unless there is exchange within the infinity, unless there is casual movement between universes, unless the pathing is open, unless the potentials are capable of pursuing.... Unless there is animation (life) to the damn thing.
I've now read this post. I'm sorry but I genuinely can't understand a word your saying until here.
It is via the infinity of finite universes that all possible paths are taken (including all possible decision points being decided differentially), all possible potentials are fulfilled, and so on.
It's here I'll ask you for a third time. how do you get the continuum infinity of all possibilities to fit into the countable infinity of finite universes (u)? Continuum infinity is infinitely bigger than countable infinity and won't fit in! for someone who uses the word infinity as much as you, you should start saying which type of infinity you're referring to, it matters otherwise what your saying is meaningless to me.
"unless there is casual movement between universes,"
Yes that's also central for my own theory. As one big bang expands it will mix with a neighbouring one eventually, and repeat throughout 'The Infinite' as an eternal process of finite big bangs and big crunches. :)
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
DJF
You refer to my post 60 in another thread, which read:

"I wish you all the very best in life for your futures and (sorry if you don't like it) that includes freedom from useless semantic drivel."

Anyway, if I was careless in leaving my post open to misinterpretation, then I apologise. for that.
To me it reads that I wish you the very best in life, including freedom from (receiving) useless semantic drivel.

Cat :)
 
DJF
You refer to my post 60 in another thread, which read:

"I wish you all the very best in life for your futures and (sorry if you don't like it) that includes freedom from useless semantic drivel."

Anyway, if I was careless in leaving my post open to misinterpretation, then I apologise. for that.
To me it reads that I wish you the very best in life, including freedom from (receiving) useless semantic drivel.

Cat :)
Thanks for your apology and clarification.
 
Aug 14, 2020
625
119
1,060
I've now read this post. I'm sorry but I genuinely can't understand a word your saying until here. It's here I'll ask you for a third time. how do you get the continuum infinity of all possibilities to fit into the countable infinity of finite universes (u)? Continuum infinity is infinitely bigger than countable infinity and won't fit in! for someone who uses the word infinity as much as you, you should start saying which type of infinity you're referring to, it matters otherwise what your saying is meaningless to me.Yes that's also central for my own theory. As one big bang expands it will mix with a neighbouring one eventually, and repeat throughout 'The Infinite' as an eternal process of finite big bangs and big crunches. :)
You can't understand a word I'm saying. That I understand. I understand you, though. I'm just not going along accepting your premises. I'll keep reading though. I've already told you I like some of what you have to say.
 

Catastrophe

The devil is in the detail
DJF, in post 41 you stated:

QUOTE
It may seem trivial, but Catastrophe was putting it forward as scientific backing for his arguments, so it should be a bit more accurate. The people who wrote that are supposed to be experts so they should also know better, That's why I picked on it, the whole article was riddled with faults.
QUOTE

I would be most grateful if you enlighten me on the problems you have with my statement.

Cat :)
 
DJF, in post 41 you stated:

QUOTE
It may seem trivial, but Catastrophe was putting it forward as scientific backing for his arguments, so it should be a bit more accurate. The people who wrote that are supposed to be experts so they should also know better, That's why I picked on it, the whole article was riddled with faults.
QUOTE

I would be most grateful if you enlighten me on the problems you have with my statement.

Cat :)
Yes, I listed what I saw as all the faults in my reply to you, post 29 above, and in subsequent discussions with Helio. Have read of that and I'll be happy to discuss things further with you. :)
 
Aug 14, 2020
625
119
1,060
You have an individual universe (tree). It is an individual unto itself. Then you have the possibility of a lot of universes (trees) in a Universe (Forest) of universes (trees). And the possibility of an infinity of universes (trees) making up the Universe (Forest). When is it not possible to fit any more universes (trees) into the Universe of universes (Forest of trees)? Where, when, does the Universe (Forest) become larger, or smaller, than the total of universes (trees) that make it up, that it exists from?

There is an old farmer homily that says the Chicken is in the egg, and the egg is in the Chicken. Which comes first? There is no answer. The Forest is in each of all the trees, the tree is, the trees are, in the Forest. The Universe is in the universe, the universe is in the Universe. The Infinite (the infinitesimal) is in the finite, the finite is in the Infinite (the infinitesimal). It is a wrap into itself: The Big Crunch, infinitesimal in space, infinite in mass (/Big Hole, infinite in space, infinitesimal in mass)..... Multiverse.... Multi-dimensionality.

Pull of gravity: to the infinitesimal of the Big Crunch Singularity / Pull of gravity: to the infinite of the Big Hole Horizon (analogy; gravity's pull is to each and every tree of a Forest of trees, to an infinitesimal root hub, never mind the Forest // gravity's pull is to a Forest of all, to an infinite horizon rim of all, never mind the trees.... But the Forest is in each and every tree.... But each and every tree is in the Forest).

Big Crunch ( / Big Hole (Space) (Vacuum)) || Vortex of vortices ( / Irresistible Force of Immovable Object) || Big Bang ( / Animation (Life Force)).
 
Last edited:
Jun 1, 2020
1,863
1,558
5,060
Not quite sure what you mean there, sounds like it's against Einsteins "God does not play dice" quote. I'm struggling with this one , so more discussion would be welcome.
Einstein favored determinism over the new field of QM, where random things become the random you are addressing where only probability equations make sense and things like quantum tunneling do take place to thwart any hard ability to nail cause and effect for actions of sub-atomic particles.

Anyway, my take on it is as follows. I don't think reality is following probabilities, I think it's all exactly clockwork.
That is a legitimate belief, and some might say you're probably right. ;)

We don't seem to have any supporting objective evidence, however, that would not refute Einstein's deterministic views. That doesn't mean we won't in the future but science is treated differently than philosophy, so it seems to be beyond the purview of science. Perhaps there are hypotheses that can be tested, and, if so, those would be interesting to learn about.

I think 'rules of probability' are just a human construct to help us predict things.
Right, that's what science does; it's part of our conversation with Nature. Probability is only inserted when no other solution will suffice.

Those probability rules are what keep Vegas running. Vegas doesn't need players to roll an infinite number of times to get the results they want since they do roll often enough where the probabilities favor the house, if only slightly. Rich winners are often invited back to play more since the probability is that they will subsequently lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Nov 6, 2020
59
18
45
My own take on the odds of life originating by chance alone is to look at the scales of things -

1.3 billion cubic kilometres of liquid water (on Earth ie one planet)

= 1,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ml

About 1,000,000 bacteria per ml live in sea water, so if the chemical precursors for those are present in primordial sea water we get enough to make...

= 1,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria's worth.

Give it 500 million years of chemical reactions that happen at much faster than 1 per second per ml rates

I'll be very conservative and say only 1 reaction per second... rather than the millions or more I suspect would be the case -

= 15,750,000,000,000,000 seconds x 1,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria's worth

= 20,475,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 opportunities for random chemistry + selection make the appropriate complex chemistry for earliest ‘simple’ life.

Now this isn't intended to be definitive by any means - add or subtract a few zeros if that makes you happier. It is just an attempt to see how "very unlikely" fits with extremely large numbers of opportunities for "unlikely" to happen.

(Note, I posted this elsewhere and repost it here. I had some version of this in "Abiogenesis - science or faith?" thread, but Search is not bringing that up, nor does it appear any more in my contents pages. Don't know why.)
Randomness and inevitability can only do so much. The problem with the theory of the self-manifestation of life is that - not only does the preciseness of the inanimate ingredients but also the billions of lines of code needed to operate life's "machinery" all need to come together in one instant in time. The idea of randomness spontaneously generating working algorithms and the platforms needed to run them (the software) and then all the precise chemicals in their precise amounts and form (the hardware).... If one ingredient is missing or one character of code is off the whole thing falls apart and you have to start all over. Most theories of the origins of the universe tell us that time is not infinite and that the universe "ends". Some theories say it keeps repeating, but always from another diffuse "beginning". Have you ever seen a cell at work at the electron microscopic level? It's a veritable factory fine tuned for a highly specific and specialized function. Many, many parts working harmoniously with precision and "intelligence", if you will. Knowing just what to do. You may as well call the belief in spontaneous life a religion all it's own. It is nothing less than faith. I would say that, by your own calculations, the possibility of an intelligent "creator" is more, or at the very least, equally plausible.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY