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

[Sy Borg]

I believe in "survival of the persistent". Most of the things we see in the universe are there only because they outlasted all the other things that broke apart. Survival of the fittest is part of this larger schema. That's why things are not random. Random stuff does not persist for as long as organised stuff but, in any sufficiently cool chaotic field, order will spontaneously appear simply through the law of averages, even if not via various forces.

[revo74]

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...
[/quote]

This is nothing more than a bald assertion. Planet generation is not accidental and whether life is or not is still an open-ended question. However, all the evidence is pointing in the direction life is inevitable.

Stars create elements through stellar nucleosynthesis. When they die their elements scatter throughout local regions of their galaxy and are captured like nets by nebula. The largest of stars create additional heavier elements when massive energy levels are reached when they supernova. This is called supernova nucleosynthesis.
Shockwaves from supernovae collide with element rich nebulas causing them to collapse due to their gravitational instability and form many new stars, planets and moons. One solar system dies, many more are created. This entire cycle has nothing to do with chance (a series of random accidental events). The governing rules/forces (or natural laws) directs matter to behave this way.
We also know that jets which are emitted by quasars cause the birth of the solar systems as well.

We have now discovered hundreds of exoplanets including many dozens of small rocky planets such as Earth residing in the habitual zone of their solar system.
Our own planet Mars shows signs of rivers and we know it once had a much greater atmosphere. Many believe life once flourished on Mars.

We see uniformity everywhere we look in the universe. Why would life an exception?

When and where large astronomical structures such as stars, planets , moons, black holes, etc., form may be a result of chance, but that they do form is not.

Here is a short video showing how the first stars in the universe formed:

https://youtu(dot)be/n4vvuzIWOTE

[revo74]

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


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.


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.

The laws of physics are mathematical models that describe phenomena and physical behavior of matter/energy we observe. We have created them. When I say governing rules/forces and natural laws I am using a label for these mysterious phenomena themselves, recognizing we are ignorant of what they fundamentally are. There is phenomena directing matter/energy is specific ways to become organized systems. My argument is that life is likely one of these systems and that life likely does not fundamentally form by accident just as atoms, elements, molecules, amino acids, proteins, stars, planets, moons, black holes, do not.

[Prof Bulani]

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...

This is nothing more than a bald assertion. Planet generation is not accidental and whether life is or not is still an open-ended question. However, all the evidence is pointing in the direction life is inevitable.

Stars create elements through stellar nucleosynthesis. When they die their elements scatter throughout local regions of their galaxy and are captured like nets by nebula. The largest of stars create additional heavier elements when massive energy levels are reached when they supernova. This is called supernova nucleosynthesis.
Shockwaves from supernovae collide with element rich nebulas causing them to collapse due to their gravitational instability and form many new stars, planets and moons. One solar system dies, many more are created. This entire cycle has nothing to do with chance (a series of random accidental events). The governing rules/forces (or natural laws) directs matter to behave this way.
We also know that jets which are emitted by quasars cause the birth of the solar systems as well.

We have now discovered hundreds of exoplanets including many dozens of small rocky planets such as Earth residing in the habitual zone of their solar system.
Our own planet Mars shows signs of rivers and we know it once had a much greater atmosphere. Many believe life once flourished on Mars.

We see uniformity everywhere we look in the universe. Why would life an exception?

When and where large astronomical structures such as stars, planets , moons, black holes, etc., form may be a result of chance, but that they do form is not.

Here is a short video showing how the first stars in the universe formed:

https://youtu(dot)be/n4vvuzIWOTE
[/quote]
By accidental I mean randomly generated

[Atla]

Life is only inevitable in an infinite multiverse. Based on the known physical constants, physical laws etc., the chance for a random universe to contain life is unimaginably small, but not zero (some guess it's something like 1 in 10^100, some guess it's more like 1 in 10^(10^100), who knows).

But then a human looking at the universe will see a universe where life is inevitable.

[revo74]

Life is only inevitable in an infinite multiverse.

This is a bald assertion.

[h_k_s]

"... 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.

The laws of physics are mathematical models that describe phenomena and physical behavior of matter/energy we observe. We have created them. When I say governing rules/forces and natural laws I am using a label for these mysterious phenomena themselves, recognizing we are ignorant of what they fundamentally are. There is phenomena directing matter/energy is specific ways to become organized systems. My argument is that life is likely one of these systems and that life likely does not fundamentally form by accident just as atoms, elements, molecules, amino acids, proteins, stars, planets, moons, black holes, do not.

Thank you for your clarification and self-correction.

[woodbine]

I believe in "survival of the persistent". Most of the things we see in the universe are there only because they outlasted all the other things that broke apart. Survival of the fittest is part of this larger schema. That's why things are not random. Random stuff does not persist for as long as organised stuff but, in any sufficiently cool chaotic field, order will spontaneously appear simply through the law of averages, even if not via various forces.

That is a wonderful insight. I had never considered the analogy with biological evolution. Organised (fit) stuff exists because disorganised (unfit) stuff does not persist.

Like all good ideas it seems obvious - after you hear it.

[Buzzard3]

Right, so the OP is saying, if we leave some nuts and bolts and assorted bits and pieces of metal lying about, it's inevitable that they will organise themselves to form not only a machine, but a machine that can reproduce itself.

I beg to disagree.

[Raymond]

On every planet in the universe, facing both the cold void of the universe and the warm heat bath of a star periodically, life is bound to come along. The universe is teeming with life.

[Sy Borg]

I believe in "survival of the persistent". Most of the things we see in the universe are there only because they outlasted all the other things that broke apart. Survival of the fittest is part of this larger schema. That's why things are not random. Random stuff does not persist for as long as organised stuff but, in any sufficiently cool chaotic field, order will spontaneously appear simply through the law of averages, even if not via various forces.

That is a wonderful insight. I had never considered the analogy with biological evolution. Organised (fit) stuff exists because disorganised (unfit) stuff does not persist.

Like all good ideas it seems obvious - after you hear it.

Yep, the universe/Earth/humanity we see today are the current "winners".

A clarification: reproduction can be thought of as persistence, albeit a much more dynamic and chaotic kind of persistence to that of rocks.

[Raymond]

Right, so the OP is saying, if we leave some nuts and bolts and assorted bits and pieces of metal lying about, it's inevitable that they will organise themselves to form not only a machine, but a machine that can reproduce itself.

I beg to disagree.

Nuts and bolts and assorted pieces left on a table for sure not. Amino acids in raging seas, storms, volcanoes, and h
lightning on a chemical planet rotating between the solar heat and universal void for sure. The gods had it planned damned well, so let's not disappoint them...

[Sy Borg]

The gods had it planned damned well, so let's not disappoint them...

It takes a mighty tough taskmaster to be disappointed with an infant, which would be about humanity's stage in a fourteen billion year-old universe with another few thousand billion years of stellar activity ahead.

[Raymond]

The gods had it planned damned well, so let's not disappoint them...

It takes a mighty tough taskmaster to be disappointed with an infant, which would be about humanity's stage in a fourteen billion year-old universe with another few thousand billion years of stellar activity ahead.

Not just one taskmaster. As many as creatures there will ever appear my friend! Not sure if we are in our infancy still. Why you think humanity is in its infancy? The Sun dies out in 5 billion years. Maybe space expansion has a grip on the galaxies then. What more can we learn about the cosmos than its fundamentals?

[Sy Borg]

Why you think humanity is in its infancy? The Sun dies out in 5 billion years. Maybe space expansion has a grip on the galaxies then. What more can we learn about the cosmos than its fundamentals?

The biosphere is about 3,800 million years old.

Trilobites were one of the dominant species for over 250 million years.

Dinosaurs ruled the Earth for 200 million years.

Humans are about 2.5 million years old.

Homo sapiens are about 0.3 million years old.

Human agriculture is about 0.012 million years old.

Infancy.

As for life in the universe, I already mentioned the universe's young age as compared with its productive (by our standards) lifetime. It's approximately, and conservatively, in the first hundredth of its life. An infant.

Humans may not ever master interstellar distances, but I figure that somewhere and somewhen species will emerge that conquer space in ways perhaps not even dreamed of by science fiction writers. There is a ton of potential for advancement. If humanity fails to successfully expand into space then that would make us early "prototype", like 78 rpm records. Good while it lasted, but doomed. If humanity manages to solve some of the more difficult issues related to consciousness and space travel, then they could be some of the universe's great pioneers.