The possibility of life forms based on different logics, different chemistries, or even different natural constants can't be ruled out but at this time it's only a fanciful idea with no scientific basis. There is no way ( at least at this time ) to test whether or not life could evolve in universes in which the natural constants are much different from our own or whether or not life based on principles other than those on which terrestrial life is based could occur in this universe. The only life we know of occurs on this planet; pending the actual discovery of extraterrestrial life, extraterrestrial life, even that based on the same principles as terrestrial life, is mere speculation based on scientists' personal hunches and musings and a lot of questionable fiddlings with a lot of approximate numbers. It's quite possible we are alone. Do you agree with this?
It's more than quite possible. It is a practical certainty. Evolutionary theory suggests that all life is the product of common descent, i.e., a single ancestral self replicating molecule started everything. The random probability of a self replicating molecule appearing is so small as to be practically impossible -- this is the standard argument of the ID supporter. And yet we are here. As Sherlock Holmes says, eliminate all of the other possibilities and whatever is left no matter how improbable must be the truth. We are the product of a fantastically improbable event. Life happened in this universe by accident. When it did, it had no competition. And here we are.
That's debatable. I would question that. I wouldn't swallow that whole. No need to be prejudiced. Gotta stay open-minded, right? Flexible, yes? Let's be reasonable, shall we? We can sniff this out. Have another look at it. Double check. Stoke the pipe one more time. Think mon!
sounds about as useful as a cite from jem... how improbable really? where have you seen that life is not flourishing over a couple quadrillions universes out there? let my inner zizzzo speak up and ask: what about entanglement to take another example? how "improbable" would you say it is and what would that mean?
When the improbability reaches fantastic levels we should consider the possibility that it didn't happen by chance. Really, isn't randomness a mystery? The mathematics of probability are fairly simple but why the rules of probability or for that matter any other rules of nature? What is the metalaw for natural law? What is the lawmaker-enforcer?
"And yet we are here. As Sherlock Holmes says, eliminate all of the other possibilities and whatever is left no matter how improbable must be the truth." Uhhh, how has ID as a possibility been eliminated? Isn't science little but a sequential history of the continual revision of truth? When the atom was considered the smallest possible particle, that was the truth, but was it the Truth?
HH: >The possibility of life forms based on different logics, >different chemistries, or even different natural constants >can't be ruled out ... Agreed. >but at this time it's only a fanciful idea with no scientific basis. No more fanciful than the two primary concepts (Creation/ID and Evo) battling it out regarding our planet. Obviously an omnipotent designer could have made us quite comfy at the core of the sun and I chuckle when as a community we look around and say 'oh looky, there may be water on that planet -- making it possible to support life' ... LOL actually meaning 'support life *like us*' (carbon based). >There is no way ( at least at this time ) to test whether >or not life could evolve in universes in which the natural >constants are much different from our own or whether >or not life based on principles other than those on which >terrestrial life is based could occur in this universe. And previous to our arrival, there would have been nor more (or less) of a way for some other life form somewhere to perform the same test regarding our form. I see it as a statement without a point. >It's quite possible we are alone. Yes it is. JB
How unlikely is the appearance of a self-replicating molecule? Maybe you've said but forgive me I haven't read this entire thread.
The existence of metauniverses is unproven at this time. There are two theories on how they may be created: string theory; the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. String theory provides 10^500 possible universes in which to find life. Each universe could have a different cosmological constant, and produce the same or different outcomes from our own. The many worlds interpretation provides an infinity of alternate futures, each stemming from wave function collapses. It also makes the notion of randomness irrelevant, because in this interpretation, anything that can possibly happen, actually does happen, in at least one universe. But, just like with the creator, there's no physical evidence to prove the above-described theories, at this time. So, while we can speculate about what may be true, what we know is true is that we live in this universe and that life exists. The formation of life may be the product of some sort of clay and polypeptide interaction, or the result of wave bubbles breaking on some ancient shore, but we have yet to duplicate the effort which nature has apparently accomplished: a simple self-replicating molecule. There is one scientific theory which does explain this event entirely: random chance. A simple self replicating molecule could have been assembled by accident. No matter how improbable that event seems, it is nevertheless within the sphere of physical possibility, therefore it cannot be absolutely dismissed. And, as the fossil and genetic physical evidence suggests that all life is the product of common descent, this supports the notion of a pure accident. The alternative: god did it, is, not within the realm of physical probability. If God is an extra-universal actor, then He is no more scientifically provable (at this time), than are the string theory/many worlds meta universes. All three of these theories are still philosophy. If God is a part of this universe, then the probability of the spontaneous creation of an organism of limitless power is infinitely more unlikely than is the random chance of abiogenesis. The point being that when you assign limitless possibilities to a selection set, you render all probabilities of the existence of God infinitely improbable. Returning to the basket of green and red apples, what is the probability of pulling a green apple from a basket filled with an infinity of red apples: Zero. Or, more precisely, 1/infinity -> 0. Which doesn't mean that the green apple isn't in the basket. It does mean that there is no scientific method of assigning a probability to God's existence, and that no matter how improbable our self replicating molecule may be, it is infinitely more probable than the alternative of God.
What's the probability of pulling a self-replicating green apple from the basket of red non self replicating ones? Given enough time would you anticipate hitting the powerball?