Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jimmydasaint

Is Life Inevitable?

Recommended Posts

The Earth is in a happy place - not too far from the Sun and not too close so that temperatures are intolerable. We have an electromagnetic field, and an ozone layer which protect us like an umbrella from harmful electromagnetic radiation from the Sun. The planet is mostly a watery domain. We have recycling systems for water, carbon and nitrogen.

 

To my mind, it seems inevitable that life would arise and spread on the Earth. Additionally, it seems inevitable that life will occur on other Earth-like planets with the same features as the Earth. There seems to be a cosmological program called LIFE v1.0 which is circulating around the Universe, and to my mind, life is inevitable.

 

Do others agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me very much of the anthropic principle. Which in essence states that the universe is "tuned" so that life would develop.

 

As life exists on Earth it seems reasonable to expect life to also exist somewhere else. Simply playing the numbers game there should be "earth-like" planets out there. But until such environments are found and fully investigated it will remain an open question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can really say is, the rock doesn't grow the moss, the moss grows around the rock.

 

You don't need 'Earth' like planets for there to be life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Jimmy was focused more on the Speculations side of things, and also knew that his question bordered on the philosophical more than the scientific.

 

It's an interesting question. I'm leaning towards "yes." Life is impossible to avoid. The comment just works on so many levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This reminds me very much of the anthropic principle. Which in essence states that the universe is "tuned" so that life would develop.

 

Just curious if there are any scientific reasons why it was tuned this way or is it more of just a numbers game!(random process)

 

I have intuitive ideas that life would be inevitable but it comes from my belief that it would be the next step in energy breaking free from materialism!

Even as energy became water it was free to escape as water has motion and effected by magnetic fields!The energy escaped as the motion became work letting potential energy transform into kinetic!

These are just my thoughts though!

Edited by walkntune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just curious if there are any scientific reasons why it was tuned this way or is it more of just a numbers game!(random process)

Your ideas seem dangerously likely to draw the thread off-topic. So, I encourage you to explore links like the below and start your own threads for further exploration.

 

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/11/fine-tuning-foolishness-hammering-out.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I do not believe in God or any religion!

My views are from a natural course of energy that I pull out of this equation E=MC2

as mass is a stored energy!

I understand energy to be the only thing that exists and I understand it to keep balance with itself as in this equation.Also suggested them to just be my thoughts on it!

I answered the question did I think life would be inevitable?

 

I have scientific reasons behind what I believe, not religious!

 

I do appreciate the integrity behind your post though!

Edited by walkntune

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I can really say is, the rock doesn't grow the moss, the moss grows around the rock.

 

You don't need 'Earth' like planets for there to be life.

 

By Earth like I mean "small and rocky" and in the right position near the parent star. As opposed to giant gas planets, though their moons could be suitable, c.f Europa.

 

Most of our techniques for finding exoplanets favours gas giants close to the parent star. Probably not where we would expect life to evolve, given what we know right now but you never know.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
Just curious if there are any scientific reasons why it was tuned this way or is it more of just a numbers game!(random process)

 

As you may know, there are many many string vacua each describing a different universe. Maybe all these are realised and our universe is the one (only one?) in which life can develop.

 

Or for some reason ours was selected.

 

This all seems to lose scientific credibility quickly, though people do think about such ideas.

Edited by ajb
Consecutive posts merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difficulty of assessing the probability of life arising is that we are currently working with a sample of one. It's difficult to do statistics on something like that.

 

The early appearance of life on Earth could be explained by

a) The rapidity with which life will tend to emerge because its 'easy'.

b) Chance occurrence of a highly unlikely event. (Weak Anthropic Principle)

c) Panspermia

 

There seems no compelling reason at present to favour one of these over the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just curious if there are any scientific reasons why it was tuned this way or is it more of just a numbers game!(random process)

 

I have intuitive ideas that life would be inevitable but it comes from my belief that it would be the next step in energy breaking free from materialism!

Even as energy became water it was free to escape as water has motion and effected by magnetic fields!The energy escaped as the motion became work letting potential energy transform into kinetic!

These are just my thoughts though!

 

With all the claims of fine-tuning, I've never seen anyone substantiate it with calculations. Also, they always talk about changing one parameter; what if you change two or three or a million? The argument is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With all the claims of fine-tuning, I've never seen anyone substantiate it with calculations. Also, they always talk about changing one parameter; what if you change two or three or a million? The argument is ridiculous.

 

Truth is out there for those who are willing to see!

 

What has the future in store for this strange being, born of a breath, of perishable tissue, yet Immortal, with his powers fearful and Divine? What magic will be wrought by him in the end? What is to be his greatest deed, his crowning achievement?

Long ago he recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or a tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life-giving Prana or Creative Force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles, all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.

Can man control this grandest, most awe-inspiring of all processes in nature? Can he harness her inexhaustible energies to perform all their functions at his bidding? more still cause them to operate simply by the force of his will?

If he could do this, he would have powers almost unlimited and supernatural. At his command, with but a slight effort on his part, old worlds would disappear and new ones of his planning would spring into being. He could fix, solidify and preserve the ethereal shapes of his imagining, the fleeting visions of his dreams. He could express all the creations of his mind on any scale, in forms concrete and imperishable. He could alter the size of this planet, control its seasons, guide it along any path he might choose through the depths of the Universe. He could cause planets to collide and produce his suns and stars, his heat and light. He could originate and develop life in all its infinite forms. Nikola Tesla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truth is out there for those who are willing to see!
* "There are none so blind as those who get their eyes poked out for capitalizing the word 'truth'." --Phi for All

 

 

 

 

* If it was just because it was the first word in the sentence, your eyes are safe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"There are none so blind as those who get their eyes poked out for capitalizing the word 'truth'." --Phi for All

Truth is like love my friend! It exists for those who can believe and see it!

If you search for it then it takes a belief that it is not there for who goes searching for something that isn't missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truth is like love my friend! It exists for those who can believe and see it!

If you search for it then it takes a belief that it is not there for who goes searching for something that isn't missing?

Truth with a capital T is like sleeping with your sister; it's convenient, it's satisfying, and in everyone else's opinion, it's almost invariably WRONG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I am a firm believer in knowledge without integrity is worthless so lets please be considerate of the OP and I will start another thread that we can argue debate soon enough!

I am simply giving my thoughts on why I believe life is inevitable and actually gave a great scientist's quote to show that its not just a made up belief!

Any ideas that energy can't be a possibility will be strongly considered and would actually be greatly appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't know what's going on in this thread any more! Maybe I just need to believe!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now I am a firm believer in knowledge without integrity is worthless so lets please be considerate of the OP and I will start another thread that we can argue debate soon enough!
Oh, please please don't.

 

My point is that if you believe the phrase, "Life is inevitable" to be Truth, you aren't showing a healthy scientific skepticism. As Ophiolite mentioned, we don't have enough data from a single sample set to make a meaningful conclusion, let alone set it in stone as Truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that if you believe the phrase, "Life is inevitable" to be Truth, you aren't showing a healthy scientific skepticism. As Ophiolite mentioned, we don't have enough data from a single sample set to make a meaningful conclusion, let alone set it in stone as Truth.

 

I understand where point of view of skepticism comes from.

The existence of life is not the same as trying to prove there is a God.

We know life exists and it was either inevitable or it is not.

I don't necessarily agree with the healthy scientific skepticism.

In fact i believe you can only see the world through the lens you choose to look out of!You can search for whats true or you can search for whats false!

I just hope you are not searching for something unless you hope to find it!

 

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant.

 

We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." Albert Einstein

 

Do you understand what this is implying?

 

Einstein and Tesla have both already implied what they thought to be a cosmic order.

 

Science is so blind by skepticism it is missing this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you understand what it's implying? I'll give you a hint. It's not implying that you can arbitrarily decide what's true by "feeling it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you understand what it's implying? I'll give you a hint. It's not implying that you can arbitrarily decide what's true by "feeling it."

 

You can dance around the subject of how I came about my ideas or you can simply prove them wrong!

You can tell me" The truth does not exist" but how can you make such a statement make any logical sense?

Sorry I have an intuitive mind so if you find anything illogical in what I sense to be true then do the job of a skeptic and show it wrong! I can't find any logic to why it is wrong but I observe it in all matter around me.

With the equation E+MC2, it seems most people see the energy as an effect of but I see it as the cause of!

I say I see it intuitively! I try to rationalize it with logic but haven't yet! I will welcome you again to logically prove it wrong!

It will be greatly appreciated!

I have come across these ideas to only find they have been discovered along time ago.

Long ago he recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance,Tesla

Einstein said "God does not play dice"

"I believe," Einstein answered, "that energy is the basic force in creation. My friend Bergson calls it élan vital, the Hindus call it prana."

I happen to believe Einstein and Tesla were both on to something and I also happen to see with intuition what they see!

If you want to prove intuition does not exist and is not a tool for info.. then good luck and best wishes!

 

 

jimmydasaint I am sorry this has happened in you thread!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before we even get into issues of burden of proof, you would have to make a coherent hypothesis. This you have not yet done, as far as I can tell.

 

And my point about "intuition" is not that it has no value - quite the contrary. My point is that what you think "intuition" means is wrong. I'm not arguing with Einstein. I'm arguing with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And my point about "intuition" is not that it has no value - quite the contrary. My point is that what you think "intuition" means is wrong. I'm not arguing with Einstein. I'm arguing with you.

 

Please enlighten me!

 

 

Most of our techniques for finding exoplanets favours gas giants close to the parent star. Probably not where we would expect life to evolve, given what we know right now but you never know.

I agree 100%

If I was to believe that energy is the base of life then I would expect to find a nearby energy source!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I should clarify my reasons for the OP. You are right i-Now, this thread borders on the philosophical and seems to have digressed into pure philosophy. I did give a passing nod to the Anthropic Principle but my main point was to stress the mediocrity of life on Earth. The Mediocrity Principle can be paraphrased as saying that our planet is a mediocre planet in a mediocre Solar System in a mediocre Galaxy. There is really nothing special about us as life forms. The question arose in my mind that with the millions of possible planets in millions of Galaxies, life would arise under suitable conditions anywhere. No need for Panspermia. Further, if all life is destroyed on this planet by an atypical event, e.g. collision with a Near Earth Object, then life would arise again using new raw materials.

 

Walkntune, please don't apologise - I should have been foresighted enough to sense the possibility of arguments between 'spiritualists' and materialist rationalists. I have read a smidgin of Bergson and about the elan vital. It appeals to me to believe that we have a collective consciousness but we are in a Forum that demands solid evidence instead of opinion. Hence my wish to post here in Speculations.

 

The mediocrity principle is the notion in philosophy of science that there is nothing special about humans or the Earth. It is a Copernican principle, used either as an heuristic about Earth's position or a philosophical statement about the place of humanity. In a broader context, the mediocrity principle states that whenever one observes a phenomenon, it is likely that the observed occurrence is only one out of many occurrences; if one witnesses an extraordinary event, it should be assumed that the event occurs more than once, given the proper circumstances.

The mediocrity principle as applied to humanity's and Earth's existence is further boosted by:

Fossil evidence supported by genetics concluding that all humans have a common ancestor about 100,000 years ago and that they share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos about six million years ago. Therefore humans are part of the biosphere, not above it or unique to it.

Humans share about 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have actually undergone more genetic change than humans[1].

The answering of Schrödinger's question What is Life? through the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA and the reduction of life to organic chemistry, negating the vitalism of previous centuries.

Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is substantially larger than humans first thought. The Hubble Deep Field is a long exposure of thousands of galaxies, making it one of the best pictorial representations of the principle of mediocrity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_mediocrity

Edited by jimmydasaint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't necessarily agree with the healthy scientific skepticism.

In fact i believe you can only see the world through the lens you choose to look out of!You can search for whats true or you can search for whats false!

I just hope you are not searching for something unless you hope to find it!

 

Well this is where you and a scientist part ways. Scientists search for what is not false; and when they have tried to find fault with a theory but cannot, start to presume it is true. They frequently search for things they hope not to find!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.