Doubting Didymus

Exactly, but we can theorise. A universe that supports life must be a universe where it is possible for something to replicate, mutate, and inherit. These are the only neccessary criteria.

As for specifically intelligent life, to speculate on the neccessary requirements for that would require a better understanding than we have about how matter creates mind. A mind might come about in a variety of circumstances. We do not have enough information to speculate.

NumberTenOx

We have won the lottery, no doubt about it. Against incredible, unimaginable odds, intelligent life has appeared on this planet (recent congressional votes notwithstanding).

But here in Washington State, USA, the local lottery commission has an ad campaign, "Some Lucky Dog's Got to Win It." Any argument that deals with odds has to deal with the point of view of the lottery winner. That person says "Cool, that wasn't so hard!"

Of course you say that there was no guarantee that someone would win this particular lottery. But the fact that someone did - proves nothing. Maybe we're just the lucky dogs.

(Cool paper, though...)

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: NumberTenOx ]</p>

eh

And all I saw on that website was conclusions based on misunderstood scientific theories. Where shall I start?

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: eh ]</p>

ps418

Just to put my brief 2 cents in: I definitely agree that a universe in which life of any kind could evolve is only possible within a narrow range of physical constants. For instance, you do need to make heavy elements to have life, and to make heavy elements you need stars, and to make stars you need the right values for gravity and so on.

The universe that exists does strike me intuitively as fine-tuned (e.g. gravity has neither caused the universe to collapse, nor prevented the formation of galaxies), but I am simply ignorant on too many counts to say what it means or what the correct explanation is.

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

Asha'man

I just recently read an article about the possible existance of liquid water on Venus (upper atmosphere), Jupiter (mid-level clouds), and a few of the moons around Jupiter or Saturn (buried under a layer of ice).

Just because Earth is the only planet with liquid water on the exposed surface, doesn't make it the only place where water might hide. Life might be possible in any of these odd locations, which would significantly expand the possible life zone.

Liquidrage

Vinnie,

I ask this sincerly.

I have seen many cases such as yours made. Odds too high, complexity too great.
In all these cases the conclusion is that someone or something must be a designer.

But I ask then, how do you propose that a designer overcame the same odds? How does a designer appear from nothing with the capability and understanding to posses the ability for creation?

For your arguement of statistically improbability can be used against you. If the odds are so against creatures such as us existing, what then are the odds for the existance of a something capable of creating us?

HomoSapien

Venus is the hottest place in our solar system..something like 870 F...from pole to pole..day and night...and it rains sulfric acid there. Of course it evaprates before it touches ground....that a plus.


Mars...if those ice caps melted...the entire planet under 100 feet of water..but it never will...too cold there.

Jupiter and Saturn..gas planets with mad dog weather..Neptune and Pluto...way too fucking cold.

that just leaves Herbert's...DUNE planet...

Liquidrage

Patrick,

Would you not agree that a better statement would be,
"I definitely agree that a universe in which life as we know it could evolve is only possible within a narrow range of physical constants"?

I know you are very familiar with evolution in a fundamental sense.
Could not the same simple process work in two dimensional space? Could it not work in a universe with no elements but something unforeseen by us that could serve the same purpose as our elements?

Evolution is such a simple process. Mathematical workings of it could be put forth in many unique and interesting ways. In our universe we have heavy elements produced through stellar evolution. Our existence hinges on this process. But I posit that any process that can transform uniformity (in our case hydrogen) into an array of interacting entities (in our case heavier elements) as the capability for an evolutionary process that yields complex systems.

Shadowy Man

NumberTenOx:

It's even better than that. Everyone who plays the lottery beats the odds. To win the lottery if the odds are millions to one against you would take millions upon millions of tickets to get a really high percentage of winning. I'm willing to bet that any given lottery winner has only played a few thousand times at most!!

Vinnie

Maybe this reasoning is flawed but if I were to deal a deck of 52 cards face up in a row I think the odds of that combination coming up would be 52 factorial (but its been a while since probability class in high school). A huge number and statistical improbability. Obviously one set WILL come up no matter what if I am going to be dealing and the same type of reasoning may be extended and possibly applied to the universe as well. So we can simply say we got extremely lucky with no theistic implications. The high odds in no way "prove" themselves that there was a designer. For those with possible reading comprehension problems, I never said they did either. But when we couple the extreme improbability of us being here with the big bang and a world view we can actually live by consistently they are pretty convincing to me anyways.

And comparing the lottery and its 8 million or so to one odds to this is illogical. I am talking about a statistical improbability that is much much greater! That was almost similar to comparing it to overcoming 2 to 1 odds.

I find it slightly amusing that both Christians (and their yecism) and skeptics(with their "hitherto unknown neptunian invisible pink elephant life forms" or "life in 2-d space") would argue against it. I don't think anything I said can really be disputed aside from the theistic implications I drew from scientific facts. All the science is pretty much main stream.

Homosapien, don't forget Mercury has major surface temperature fluctuations because it has NO or an extremely small atmopsphere if any. Almost venus-like heat when the sun is on it while the other side plummets into frigidly cold temperatures because there is no greenhouse effect or atmosphere to retain the heat.

Of course, I believe there is ice on Mercury. It was probably hit by a comet or comets or something and somee ice from them is there still in a crater where the sun's light does not ever reach. I remember reading about this a long time ago.

But don't forget about our best potential spot in the solar system. How could we ignore all that teeming marine life in europas "watery core"? You know, with all the gravitational friction producing heat from Jupiter and the other moons playing tug o war with poor europa we may have tube worms down there!

After all, it has "all" the conditions required for life. Liquid water, heat source, showers of organic chemicals from comets & co--what more do we need?

Of course, don't tell the public your definition of "life" on Europa may be nothing more than "microscopic" and that the odds are by no means "high" of "favourable" in regards to finding life. Optimistically overstating the case and exaggerating does sell magazines and get funding though.

Vinnie