Oxymoron

Well a stock reply to this question is "why does God exist?" If your answer is along the lines of "God is God, he/she/it just exists", then why is the argument that "life just exists" not just as - if not more - appealing?

The "anthropic principle" takes several forms. Basically it states that we can ask why we're here because if we weren't then we couldn't. However, some folk find that less than satisfactory for reasons that elude me. The other forms start to argue that universes and life are inter-related, and it all starts to sound a bit X-Files. Saying that, we still have a couple of problems:

Schroedinger's Cat paradox - does the universe need an observer to exist in a non-collapsed wave function sense?

Fine-tuning: does the universe adjust its constants so as to support the creation of an observer?

Trust me, these questions are considerably more interesting than wondering if Jebus really did die for your sins.

The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Why do we strive not to die?

Because those entities which didn't care whether they lived or died tended not to produce descendents.

Cheers,

Michael

Th1nk3r

"Why did the first species that could reproduce itself, reproduce?"

Well, are you sure that the first species that were able of reproduction, actually did?

Perhaps only the second one did, and that's where all life comes from and the first one got extinct.

callmejay

I like to think about it this way. The first entity to reproduce was a small molecule floating around with a bunch of other molecules and various spare parts (atoms,) which had all been forming and un-forming pretty much randomly whenever the "laws" of intermolecular forces allowed. This entity just so happened to form a shape that tended to gather up atoms in such a configuration that they bonded together and became exactly like the original entity. You can see that happening by chance right? Now suppose the same molecule would occasionally gather the same atoms it usually did (just by nature of its shape) but somehow another atom got tacked on because it was floating nearby. That would be an imperfect copy. A few thousand imperfect copies later, you'd have a completely different kind of molecule.

And that's how we began.

As someone else said, check out Richard Dawkins's books if you have a sincere interest.

crocodile deathroll

"life just exits" is good enough for me

Yes, you cannot be aware of your own non-existence even if it lasted for eternity. So I feel we must exist, because you cannot possibly be aware of the states in which you don't
Yes, but not in a "Godly" conscious sense. It is just that we can only be aware of a universe from a vantage point where the constants and conditions make us possible. Like we cannot observe the universe from the vantage point of the surface of the moon

In a universe replete with every possible accident there will be an observer somewhere to observe it.
There may well be many poorly tuned universes that exist in a non-collapsed wave function sense and it does not need a god or us to observe it. The earth could be swallowed up by a black hole and the universe will still just go on merrily along as I find it plausible that there would be millions variants of earth in this accidental universe and will not make one iota of difference if a black hole swallows a few of them up.


croc

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: crocodile deathroll ]</p>

DNAunion

DNAunion: Foremost, as with all life forms, to produce at least one offpsring.

After that, something more human - to try to teach my children right from wrong and to make their life as pleasurable as I possibly can.

DNAunion: As someone else pointed out, the reason the first entity capable of reproducing reproduced is that it could reproduce.

If you are actually asking a "why" question, then that is more of a philosophical/religious question than a scientific one. Science wants to know how it came about, not why.

crocodile deathroll

If there is no hard evidence to why the first entity that reproduced, reproduced; then why the need fall back to the default position of old religious speculations?

Zentraedi

They don't have to be religious speculations. You can come up with a speculation that is not religious.

Zentraedi

And if you can't reproduce, what then? Science also wants to know why. If you don't come up with a question of why, you will not start on how to get to why.

I can speculate by what matter does, to get to why life reproduces. How about, this is pure guess work, matter tends to become more complex with time. Atoms started as hydrogen when many fall together they can create suns the produced more complex atoms(helium to iron). Can anyone add or subtract from this maybe add a little evidence for or against.



[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Zentraedi ]

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Zentraedi ]</p>

DNAunion

DNAunion: Then you've changed the question.

DNAunion: Sorry, but... ?!?!?!?!

DNAunion: Well, it's not quite that simple - there is the second law of thermodynamics to take into account.

Complex arrangements of matter tend to become less ordered over time, spontaneously. Something (an input of energy, and in many cases, of information as well) has to "fight" against that tendency in order for matter to become more complex.

In the case of stars (which you mention next), it is gravity that does the work of creating a more ordered state from a less ordered state. But gravity doesn't do anything meaningful for the objects related to the transition from non-life to life (such as RNA molecules).

DNAunion: The Big Bang produced not only hydrogen, but helium as well (and even some lithium and beryllium, I believe).

DNAunion: Stars created all natural elements, even those more massive than iron (well, I guess all but hydrogen). Iron-56 (IIRC) is the end point for stellar nucleosynthesis for stars that haven't exploded yet: nuclear processes cannot milk any more energy out of iron-56. That is, it would require an net INPUT of energy to do anything with iron (getting to iron YIELDS energy). But when such a massive star goes supernova the enormous energy involved can produce elements heavier than iron.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: DNAunion ]</p>