Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Prof Bulani]

But, do we have any basis for saying there is a chance, a billion to one or otherwise, for life to begin where there is no life? We may know the environment that can support the life forms we have encountered, but do we know the process by which inert matter can become alive? Aren't we just assuming that there must have been or could have been a 'happy accident', here or elsewhere?

Premise 1: conditions of locales in the universe are randomly generated
Premise 2: life has occurred

Unless you have a third premise, it seems logical to conclude that life occurred as a result of the conditions in at least one locale in the universe being suitable for life to occur.

Remember, chemical complexity is inevitable under conditions in which there is a net surplus of energy. While entropy is the universal law, i.e., chemical "uncomplexity", because energy dissipates towards equilibrium, where energy accumulates we would expect exactly the opposite to occur. An increase in chemical complexity under conditions where energy accumulates is no more "miraculous" than a decrease in chemical complexity under conditions where energy dissipates.

That doesn't mean that a locale in which energy accumulates will inevitably give rise to life because it gives rise to chemical complexity. We have many examples of non-living chemical complexity. Life is a special kind of chemical complexity that requires special conditions. And I agree that we don't understand much about these special conditions or if life is inevitable under these special conditions. All we have are the 2 premises to go on.

[chewybrian]

But, do we have any basis for saying there is a chance, a billion to one or otherwise, for life to begin where there is no life? We may know the environment that can support the life forms we have encountered, but do we know the process by which inert matter can become alive? Aren't we just assuming that there must have been or could have been a 'happy accident', here or elsewhere?

Premise 1: conditions of locales in the universe are randomly generated
Premise 2: life has occurred

Unless you have a third premise, it seems logical to conclude that life occurred as a result of the conditions in at least one locale in the universe being suitable for life to occur.

Well, of course there is at least one more premise, which is to say that life began due to some outside cause. This is not a logical conclusion, but only a possibility. There is also no logic to link "life has occurred" to "therefore it must have been a happy accident".

[Prof Bulani]

Premise 1: conditions of locales in the universe are randomly generated
Premise 2: life has occurred

Unless you have a third premise, it seems logical to conclude that life occurred as a result of the conditions in at least one locale in the universe being suitable for life to occur.

Well, of course there is at least one more premise, which is to say that life began due to some outside cause. This is not a logical conclusion, but only a possibility. There is also no logic to link "life has occurred" to "therefore it must have been a happy accident".

Notice that premise 1 and premise 2 are things we know to be true. We know that locales in the universe are randomly generated. We know that life has occurred in the universe at least once. If it's not something we know to be true, is not a premise. It's a hypothesis at best.

[Sy Borg]

So life IS inevitable. Just because something is scarce, does not mean it was a fluke.

The fact is that the universe is so large that just about any conceivable (and no doubt many not-yet-conceivable) conditions can potentially arise on different worlds. Given that, at least once, biology emerged from simpler organics to more efficiently break down charged material, and that water and organics are plentiful in the universe, the premise can only logically be answered in the affirmative.

No. Even if you bought 1 trillion random lottery tickets and the odds of winning was 1 billion to one, it would still be possible to NOT win the lottery, i.e., winning is never inevitable. The more lottery tickets you buy, the closer your probability of winning approaches to 1, but it never gets there unless you can buy either an infinite number of random lottery tickets, or you deliberately (a guided approach) buy at least one of every possible combination. As long as the tickets are being generated randomly, the possibility will always exist that the winning combination is not one of your tickets.

We can argue that the lottery analogy might be inaccurate, and that life can occur under a range of general conditions rather than only under one combination of exact combinations. And this is likely the case. Still, we have to understand that all these conditions are randomly generated. It will always be within the realm of possibility that the right general conditions for life occurred however in the universe. That's why I would argue that life is not inevitable. Just most likely very highly probable.

Nope. Maybe you would be right as regards a single galaxy, but the entire universe - scale of which is unknown but suspected to be exponentially larger than the observable universe - is too great.

It is suspected that there could be up to 40 billion habitable worlds in the Milky Way alone. Let's say it's a gross overestimation and call it one billion. So that would leave a conservative estimate of 200 billion billion planets (far more than a trillion) in the observable universe alone - never mind the rest.

Besides, if you checked the video you posted you would see that the formation of life appears to be a logical process of efficient stepping down of energy, ie. movement towards chemical balance. Given the odds above, life is most likely plentiful, and quite possibly at multiple sites in our own solar system.

[Prof Bulani]

Greta, I watched the video. I immediately turned a fan of Eric Smith, as his presentation was phenomenal. I have no doubt that under the conditions of this planet in its early development, with multiple sources of surplus energy accumulation and carbon/mineral mixing, life would have been inevitable.

What I've been saying is that for planet earth, or any other planet in the universe, it wasn't inevitable that those conditions would have randomly occurred (because of how random generation works). There's a possibility (although probably tiny) that nowhere in the universe the conditions may have been generated. I digress though, as I understand your point and I agree with Smith and his colleagues.

[Sy Borg]

Prof B, I'm glad you enjoyed it as much as I did. The material is dense enough to reward multiple viewings.

While the chances that life will not appear at any time in the universe are exceedingly remote, you are right that an exceedingly remote chance is still a chance, that someone will have the winning lottery ticket.

I desperately hope to be alive and healthy when/if life is discovered in the solar system. Especially if multicellular life is found under the ice of Europa or Enceladus, since that transition from microbial life is said by evolutionary biologists to be exceptionally fluky. Trouble is, if animals, fungi or plants are found elsewhere, then we'd have to find another example, to reassure ourselves that the two unlikely events happening close together wasn't a huge fluke :)

[revo74]

Life is not inevitable. The universe tends towards entropy. However, in particular locales of the universe (earth being one of them) there is a net energy increase. While energy dissipation leads to what we would refer to as deterioration of structure, or "chaos", a net surplus of energy leads an increase in structural complexity.

As a matter of probability in the universe, we could say that life is inevitable, in that there are enough locales with energy surpluses to give rise to the complexity that is life. If you would consider it "inevitable" to win the lottery if you bought 500 million tickets (random draws) and the odds were 500 million to one, then I the same sense you might consider that it would be inevitable for life to occur in the universe.

You're claiming like is a result of chance "(a series of random events). This is no more than a bald assertion. How can you be certain life isn't directed by governing rules/forces to emerge when certain conditions are met just as every other system of matter? And the fact the universe is heading towards entropy is irrelevant. The heat death of the universe won't occur for 10^100 years.

[revo74]

As a matter of abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation), the conclusion life is an inevitable consequence of governing rules/forces, is the best one to arrive at. Agree or not?

Hello fellow newbie.

The natural "laws" are as they are and we have life, therefore, deterministically speaking I suppose life is/was inevitable as is the current state of the universe generally.

However, I don't think it significant that the laws facilitate life for two reasons:

We can only have a discussion like this in a universe where the laws facilitate life.(Anthropic principle....I think )

It also reminds me of the analogy where any well shuffled deck of cards will result in a particular order, and the chances of that particular arrangement occurring are - a very big number :1. - in other words, hugely improbable but totally unremarkable.
Similarly, in which ever way the universe developed it would have been hugely improbable. This univese is hugely improbable and supports life but I do not think the two are necessarily connected.

There is a distinction to be recognized between a universe with natural laws that permit life to exist and flourish and one where there a natural laws that direct life to emerge similarly to how the strong interaction/force and electromagnetism direct the formation of atoms. The former is obvious, hence the Anthropic Principle. The later is what I am questioning.

[revo74]

So life IS inevitable. Just because something is scarce, does not mean it was a fluke.

The fact is that the universe is so large that just about any conceivable (and no doubt many not-yet-conceivable) conditions can potentially arise on different worlds. Given that, at least once, biology emerged from simpler organics to more efficiently break down charged material, and that water and organics are plentiful in the universe, the premise can only logically be answered in the affirmative.

No. Even if you bought 1 trillion random lottery tickets and the odds of winning was 1 billion to one, it would still be possible to NOT win the lottery, i.e., winning is never inevitable. The more lottery tickets you buy, the closer your probability of winning approaches to 1, but it never gets there unless you can buy either an infinite number of random lottery tickets, or you deliberately (a guided approach) buy at least one of every possible combination. As long as the tickets are being generated randomly, the possibility will always exist that the winning combination is not one of your tickets.

We can argue that the lottery analogy might be inaccurate, and that life can occur under a range of general conditions rather than only under one combination of exact combinations. And this is likely the case. Still, we have to understand that all these conditions are randomly generated. It will always be within the realm of possibility that the right general conditions for life occurred however in the universe. That's why I would argue that life is not inevitable. Just most likely very highly probable.

Once again, you're assuming without warrant that life is a result of chance (a series of random events). Do atoms form by chance? No they do not. As previously mentioned, the strong interaction/force and electromagnetic force direct particles to form into atoms. Atoms are merely one system of matter. The thing is, every single system of matter we observe in nature for which we do know how they come about, is a result of governing rules/forces (or natural laws). Why would life, the most intricate and complex system of matter be any different? There is no good reason to believe life forms accidentally.

[revo74]

But, do we have any basis for saying there is a chance, a billion to one or otherwise, for life to begin where there is no life? We may know the environment that can support the life forms we have encountered, but do we know the process by which inert matter can become alive? Aren't we just assuming that there must have been or could have been a 'happy accident', here or elsewhere?

Premise 1: conditions of locales in the universe are randomly generated
Premise 2: life has occurred

Unless you have a third premise, it seems logical to conclude that life occurred as a result of the conditions in at least one locale in the universe being suitable for life to occur.

Remember, chemical complexity is inevitable under conditions in which there is a net surplus of energy. While entropy is the universal law, i.e., chemical "uncomplexity", because energy dissipates towards equilibrium, where energy accumulates we would expect exactly the opposite to occur. An increase in chemical complexity under conditions where energy accumulates is no more "miraculous" than a decrease in chemical complexity under conditions where energy dissipates.

That doesn't mean that a locale in which energy accumulates will inevitably give rise to life because it gives rise to chemical complexity. We have many examples of non-living chemical complexity. Life is a special kind of chemical complexity that requires special conditions. And I agree that we don't understand much about these special conditions or if life is inevitable under these special conditions. All we have are the 2 premises to go on.

Premise one is wrong. However, perhaps I'm not fully comprehending what you're implying, please elaborate.

[Prof Bulani]

Once again, you're assuming without warrant that life is a result of chance (a series of random events). Do atoms form by chance? No they do not. As previously mentioned, the strong interaction/force and electromagnetic force direct particles to form into atoms. Atoms are merely one system of matter. The thing is, every single system of matter we observe in nature for which we do know how they come about, is a result of governing rules/forces (or natural laws). Why would life, the most intricate and complex system of matter be any different? There is no good reason to believe life forms accidentally.

Let me again clarify what I'm saying. The conditions on any given planet (its size, composition, solar proximity, subterranean activity, etc) are randomly generated. This is the case for all planets that exist. And yes, this "randomness" must comply with governing natural laws (just like a rolling die's "randomness" is still compliant with forces of friction and gravity). My argument was never that life forms accidentally. Life is inevitable provided that the conditions on the planet are within certain parameters. My arguments was that planet generation is accidental. The formation of at least one planet in the universe in which the conditions are suitable for life to emerge is technically not inevitable. That's the point I'm making. It's a weak point though as the chance of zero planets with the minimal conditions for life being randomly generated is likely infinitesimally tiny.

[Steve3007]

...That's the point I'm making. It's a weak point though as the chance of zero planets with the minimal conditions for life being randomly generated is likely infinitesimally tiny.

And it's a good point. Although it's nigh on impossible to say just how small or large those chances are because, so far, we only have one example to go on. If you knew nothing at all about the structure of the die in your hand, and you rolled it once, and got a 6, you'd have no idea how likely it is that the next roll would also be a 6.

As far as I'm aware, we have no clear idea of how small a probability hole life had to squeeze through to emerge on Earth. We just know, after the fact, that it happened.

[Prof Bulani]

And it's a good point. Although it's nigh on impossible to say just how small or large those chances are because, so far, we only have one example to go on. If you knew nothing at all about the structure of the die in your hand, and you rolled it once, and got a 6, you'd have no idea how likely it is that the next roll would also be a 6.

As far as I'm aware, we have no clear idea of how small a probability hole life had to squeeze through to emerge on Earth. We just know, after the fact, that it happened.

There are two probability measures we are looking at.
1. The probability of at least one planet in the universe being randomly generated with conditions suitable for the emergence of life.
2. The probability of the emergence of life on a planet in which the conditions are suitable for the emergence of life.

I was commenting on probability measure 1. My point has been that planet generation is random, and, from what we can observe, the odds of a planet being randomly generated with conditions suitable for life on it seems to be far smaller than the odds of a planet being generated that cannot support life on it at all. Therefore it is possible, albeit unlikely, that even given the vast number of generated planets in the universe, zero could have been generated with conditions suitable for the emergence of life. Because the probability of a universe with no planets randomly generated to have suitable conditions is not zero, this would imply that it would be possible for the universe to exist and have no life on it. Hence, from this stance, life is not inevitable.

Contrast that with probability measure 2. Once a planet has been generated with the conditions that allow for the emergence of life (essentially liquid water, energy input, and carbon-rich chemical mixing), scientists are arguing that life is inevitable.

In other words, life will emerge in the right conditions (probability = 1) given that a planet is randomly generated with the right conditions (probability < 0).

[woodbine]

Hello fellow newbie.

The natural "laws" are as they are and we have life, therefore, deterministically speaking I suppose life is/was inevitable as is the current state of the universe generally.

However, I don't think it significant that the laws facilitate life for two reasons:

Socan only have a discussion like this in a universe where the laws facilitate life.(Anthropic principle....I think )

It also reminds me of the analogy where any well shuffled deck of cards will result in a particular order, and the chances of that particular arrangement occurring are - a very big number :1. - in other words, hugely improbable but totally unremarkable.
Similarly, in which ever way the universe developed it would have been hugely improbable. This univese is hugely improbable and supports life but I do not think the two are necessarily connected.

There is a distinction to be recognized between a universe with natural laws that permit life to exist and flourish and one where there a natural laws that direct life to emerge similarly to how the strong interaction/force and electromagnetism direct the formation of atoms. The former is obvious, hence the Anthropic Principle. The later is what I am questioning.

I don't quite know what you mean.

So, we are looking for a distinction between;

Natural laws that "permit" life to exist.
And
Natural laws that "direct" life to exist.

To me, "Direct" in this context implies purposeful agency otherwise it would be synonymous with "permit".

Is your point that, regarding the existence of life, purposeful agency is more probable than a chance event?

[h_k_s]

In order to avoid posts that continue to grow in size I will just respond to your first two points for now.

"The universe is governed …" -- that be a stretch. We don't know if it is governed or not. It may just behave any way that it wants. It is a human hypothesis that it is "governed."

When I say governed, I mean that there are natural laws that govern various aspects of the universe. With our contemporary technology we are only able to observe and describe what we see. We give labels to phenomena we observe, such as the force of gravity and the strong interaction/force. However, we don't know what these things are fundamentally. With that said, these phenomena do govern the universe in a regular, reliable, measurable manner. Do you object to this. If so, please elaborate.

" ... rules/forces that direct matter is specific ways … " we only know of gravity and nuclear fusion, and that's a very short list.

There are 4 fundamental forces. Then what about things like the speed of light in a vacuum? Embedded in space-time in some mysterious force that is controlling the speed of light, if not photons would vary in speed, would they not. Fractals, like the Mandelbrot set would be another governing rule. Once again, there is some mysterious rule/force that causes matter to take of specific forms. Please elaborate if you disagree. Thanks!

"... natural laws …" that also be a stretch. This is what you were taught in high school and college Physics, however these are only scientific inferences. We don't even really "know" for sure what causes gravity. We have only observed that large galactic objects such as moons, planets, and stars attract other objects towards themselves.