ecco

There are some theories that posit that the universe can only support life because it is fine-tuned. These theories are put forth by some people to support notion that the universe had to be Intelligently Designed since the mathematical odds against the universe occurring naturally with just right conditions to support life are astronomical.

Some people put forth the notion that the odds against life forming spontaneously are so high as to be impossible.

Some people put forth the notion that the odds against DNA forming naturally are so high as to be impossible.

I would suggest that mathematically I cannot exist. First let me define “I�?. “I�? am one of billions of humans that exist or have ever existed. “I�? am completely individual. “I�? am Individual-x among a group of individuals from Individual-1 (Adam, Noah’s Son, Mitochondrial Eve – take you choice) to Individual-z.

At the time of my conception, over 1,000,000 sperm raced to be the first to reach and impregnate my mother’s egg. If the specific sperm that impregnated the egg was not first, Individual-x (“I�?) would not exist. Some one very much like me would exist, but Individual-x (“I�?) would not. Even among identical twins there are differences at birth. So the odds of my existence are, conservatively, 1 in 1,000,000 or 1.0E+6.

Each of my parents are also individuals. Let’s refer to them as Individual-f and Individual-m. The odds of either of them existing are 1 in 1,000,000. The odds of both of them existing are 1 in 1,000,000 multiplied by 1 in 1,000,000 or 1 in (1,000,000)^2 or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 or 1.0E+12.

I have four grandparents. The odds of any of them existing are 1 in 1,000,000. The odds of all four of them existing are 1 in (1,000,000)^4 or 1.0E+24.

For the eight folks who were my great-grandparents: 1 in (1,000,000)^8 or 1.0E+48.

This is only going back 4 generations. I conservatively estimate four generations per century and 40 centuries going back to Noah’s son, giving about 160 generations from him (Individual-1) to me (Individual-x). By the 160th generation I get 8.769E+48.

So, just from a progression of successful sperms, the odds of Individual-x (ME) existing are pretty remote. Note that I have not taken into consideration:
1. Mates that met their fate before they met their mate.
2. A break in the egg line caused by any of MY female ancestors having had a couple of headaches or an illness that prevented copulation during the critical five days that the specific ancestral eggs were viable.
3. Any of thousands of things that could have affected the development of the embryos.

I can only conclude that Individual-x (ME) cannot exist. “I�? could not have written this. I must also conclude that Individual-t (YOU) cannot exist. YOU are not reading this.


Edited to add: If someone else has already made the same argument, my apologies.

Clivedurdle

But a very very very small number is not equal to zero, and isn't this looking the wrong way into the telescope, it is 100% certain you do exist!

David B

I've seen a variation of this argument in a couple of contexts, including bridge hands happening, and golf balls landing in a particular place.

But bridge hands happen, and golf balls land.

David B

whichphilosophy

Even simpler, if we imagine we exist because we do not, then what are we if we are not.

FFT

Then you exist.

+ What David B said.

Kale Tainer

What are the chances of somebody winning a rather large pot in the lottery?
Pretty small, right?

Yet somebody always wins because that is the outcome of a lottery. That is how the game works.

So it is with your whole reproduction issue. Somebody had to be produced and 'you' were it. However unlikely, it happened.

-Kale

BTW: Claiming you do not exist does not make any sense.

BioBeing

Any Creationist is just going to say that you exist because God willed it so. He put together your parents and their parents and so on back. Probability of your existence (in your current state) = 1.0.

Newton's Cat

The observable universe is a mere speck in the totality. The supposed 14-15 billions years being bandied about as its "age" is a miniscule fraction of a second of its true age ("age" = one cycle) - there's plenty of time for life to evolve, plenty of places for it to evolve.

Sven

Opinion noted.

Oxymoron

The usefuleness of probability in this context is questionable. The Bayesians amongst us will say that probability allows us to reason in the presence of uncertainty, and identically equate probability and degree of belief. Of course, all the events - including your own birth - have uncertainty 0 because they have already happened.

When speculating about a future child, there are many sperm to be sure, but assuming that an egg will be fertilised in any one sexual liasion, the probability of a child is exactly 1. And whilst the space of characteristics is large and many-dimensional, whatever that child is, it will refer to itself as "I".