Theory of Variance and Life on Earth

[swansont]

To your first point. You need to drill down into those issues. It's not that simple. You should check out rare earth. Those guys aren't hacks at all. They encorporated help from some of the most brilliant minds in the field They explain why obliquity is so important and also why plate tectonics are as well and why they are rare. I posted large excerpts myself but I don't think I should be posting other people's work too much. Go read! lol

The issue isn't whether the presence of obliquity is important. It's whether having planets with the appropriate tilt are rare or not. The answer would seem to be no. The precise value cannot be crucial, since ours varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees over a span of 26,000 years.

[Daedalus]

It has been a while since I have been able to browse the forums but I feel that I must comment on this particular topic as I have made good money in ordering chaos to produce casino gaming devices which brings us to your topic of life being random or predictive in nature and the odds of such things occurring. While there is no simple answer to why life has formed and why it seems to be so rare, one cannot make an argument for whether it is random or predictive as both are two sides of the same coin. It is impossible to define order without its opposite, chaos, no different than up is to down. Making a statement that life on Earth has had a "lucky" streak that seems impossible implies that you understand the rules of the game that life is based upon and as far as I know we are still working on figuring that out. You are refering to all of the mechanisms that must be in place for life on Earth to exist while dismissing that creation and destruction both drive the mechanism of life. An asteroid impact my indeed sterilize the Earth but it may also combine organic molecules into structures that spawn a new era of life that may be similiar to ours or different based upon the chemistry that is formed and the laws that govern evolution. It is the laws that govern life and evolution that make life "predictive" or ordered as you suggest, but it is also the randomness of such things that give us variety and allow for such things to come into existence. Some may argue that our universe is such that we hit the jackpot and physics allows for such things as complex organisms to evolve to question their own existence while others will cling to a creationists point of view. But in the end, it takes both predictability and randomness to make life work. Without randomness our world may not have even formed as all worlds would have a predictable outcome which may not have included our Earth, but without predictability life would not be able to adapt to a completely random universe that is constantly changing in the short term. You state that the odds for this lucky streak the Earth has experienced is to good to be random and you are partially correct IMHO. However, you cannot dissmiss the role randmoness plays in our universe. Even though I control the odds in every casino game that I have created, I cannot control when such plays occur or how the player will experience the result. Given enough time, my games will play out to how I design them within a given tolerance. Regardless of how improbable I set the odds for the jackpots in my games they do occur. But that by no means suggests that the Earth came into being by design. Instead, it would seem that life is a deliberate act of randomness that is guarenteed to occur given enough time.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Daedalus

[StringJunky]

It has been a while since I have been able to browse the forums but I feel that I must comment on this particular topic as I have made good money in ordering chaos to produce casino gaming devices which brings us to your topic of life being random or predictive in nature and the odds of such things occurring.

 

While there is no simple answer to why life has formed and why it seems to be so rare, one cannot make an argument for whether it is random or predictive as both are two sides of the same coin. It is impossible to define order without its opposite, chaos, no different than up is to down.

 

Making a statement that life on Earth has had a "lucky" streak that seems impossible implies that you understand the rules of the game that life is based upon and as far as I know we are still working on figuring that out. You are refering to all of the mechanisms that must be in place for life on Earth to exist while dismissing that creation and destruction both drive the mechanism of life. An asteroid impact may indeed sterilize the Earth but it may also combine organic molecules into structures that spawn a new era of life that may be similiar to ours or different based upon the chemistry that is formed and the laws that govern evolution. It is the laws that govern life and evolution that make life "predictive" or ordered as you suggest, but it is also the randomness of such things that give us variety and allow for such things to come into existence.

 

Some may argue that our universe is such that we hit the jackpot and physics allows for such things as complex organisms to evolve to question their own existence while others will cling to a creationists point of view. But in the end, it takes both predictability and randomness to make life work. Without randomness our world may not have even formed as all worlds would have a predictable outcome which may not have included our Earth, but without predictability life would not be able to adapt to a completely random universe that is constantly changing in the short term.

 

You state that the odds for this lucky streak the Earth has experienced is to good to be random and you are partially correct IMHO. However, you cannot dissmiss the role randmoness plays in our universe. Even though I control the odds in every casino game that I have created, I cannot control when such plays occur or how the player will experience the result. Given enough time, my games will play out to how I design them within a given tolerance. Regardless of how improbable I set the odds for the jackpots in my games they do occur. But that by no means suggests that the Earth came into being by design. Instead, it would seem that life is a deliberate act of randomness that is guarenteed to occur given enough time.

 

I'm sure you'll get more responses if you paragraph your posts because walls-of-text are hard on the eyes.

Edited September 14, 2011 by StringJunky

[Daedalus]

I'm sorry StringJunky. I made that post late last night and hadn't really edited what I wrote. But, thank you for paragraphing it for me : )

[Edtharan]

I only skimmed the bulk of the thread, so if I am repeating something I apologies in advance.

 

The problem is with the word "Chance" or "Randomness". With evolution there is no dispute that there is some kind of randomness involved, but evolution itself is not a random process. It is only the variation in biological evolution that has anything really to do with chance (sure there is still a little bit of chance as a stray meteor might just fall and wipe out a whole group of species - like what happened with the dinosaurs). The est of it (selection, reproduction, etc) has almost no randomness in it.

 

What you are arguing is that if you carefully selected 10 poker cards and laid them out, then randomly changed one of them, and then wondering why 9 of the poker cards seem to be so ordered.

 

It is also the same with the origin of life. Known non-random chemical reactions can lead to reproducing structures that are very similar to modern biological structures, can contain information and undergo evolution.

 

The reason we don't know how life got started on Earth is not because there are no known mechanisms, it is that there are so many that we don't know which one actually was the one that occurred.

 

For instance (of the top of my head):

1) We know that certain clays that would have been around on the early Earth can and do cause long, complex chains of organic molecules to form in specific patterns similar to many of these that occur in even modern organisms.

 

2) Nucleic Acids can and do form in hostile environments (such as on asteroids and comets in space) and can also form in water. These Nucleic acids will spontaneously form polymer chains with complimentary pair bonding (DNA is one such form). Under certain circumstances that would have been common on early Earth (such as near hydrothermal vents) where they experience a heating and cooling cycle or certain chemical interactions, they will replicate by splitting into their complimentary chains and then attracting their complimentary monomers to form the other pair bonded chain. And coupled with lipid vesicles which allow the transition of Nucleic Acid monomers, but not polymers (and these also spontaneously form too) will cause chemical systems that resemble living cells to form (they don't self replicate but they are subject to evolution and self replication is a very advantageous trait).

 

ANd going back to the beginnings of the Universe. "The Big Bang" was most definitely not and explosion. Specifically it was the rapid expansion of space and time. And, according to the standard model, when you get down to sizes called the Plank Length and the Plank Time, the notions of space and of time are not concrete like we experience them. It is possible for and effect to preceded a cause (thus it is plausible that the universe actually created itself).

 

On scales larger than the Plank scale, we can still experience the results of it (it is the source of quantum randomness). There is a phenomena called the "Casimir Effect". This works due to the fact (and it has to be a fact since the Casimir Effect relies on it being true and the effect has been observed occurring) that particles are randomly appearing from nothing and then rapidly disappearing again.

 

With the Casimir Effect, you bring two electrically neutral and conductive plates very close together. In this situation, the wavelength of particles between the plates are constrained (much like a string on a guitar) and this means only particles with energies that fit to that gap can appear there, where as outside of the plates there is no such constraint. This means that more particles appear outside of the plates than between them, and this create a pressure that forces the plates together.

 

Now, we can actually measure this force and it increase as the plates are brought together. If we follow the curve of the force as compared to the distance, then at 0 distance you end up with infinite force. At the Plank scale, this force would have enough energy to account for the entire universe.

 

What this means is that if we consider the Plank scale at the beginning of the universe, then the energy needed to create it was available, and at that scale because of the randomness that exists (and as there is essentially no time, then all things that can occur will occur), then the universe can create itself.

 

Think of it like this. Dealing cards from a deck is like time. So, if you deal out a set of cards then you have a chance to deal out a particular hand. But, the singularity at the start of the universe (the big bang) is like the entire deck. It contains every single combination of cards you could ever have and because they are all together then the chances of one occurring, no matter how unlikely, is a certainty.

[himoura]

It has been a while since I have been able to browse the forums but I feel that I must comment on this particular topic as I have made good money in ordering chaos to produce casino gaming devices which brings us to your topic of life being random or predictive in nature and the odds of such things occurring. While there is no simple answer to why life has formed and why it seems to be so rare, one cannot make an argument for whether it is random or predictive as both are two sides of the same coin. It is impossible to define order without its opposite, chaos, no different than up is to down. Making a statement that life on Earth has had a "lucky" streak that seems impossible implies that you understand the rules of the game that life is based upon and as far as I know we are still working on figuring that out. You are refering to all of the mechanisms that must be in place for life on Earth to exist while dismissing that creation and destruction both drive the mechanism of life. An asteroid impact my indeed sterilize the Earth but it may also combine organic molecules into structures that spawn a new era of life that may be similiar to ours or different based upon the chemistry that is formed and the laws that govern evolution. It is the laws that govern life and evolution that make life "predictive" or ordered as you suggest, but it is also the randomness of such things that give us variety and allow for such things to come into existence. Some may argue that our universe is such that we hit the jackpot and physics allows for such things as complex organisms to evolve to question their own existence while others will cling to a creationists point of view. But in the end, it takes both predictability and randomness to make life work. Without randomness our world may not have even formed as all worlds would have a predictable outcome which may not have included our Earth, but without predictability life would not be able to adapt to a completely random universe that is constantly changing in the short term. You state that the odds for this lucky streak the Earth has experienced is to good to be random and you are partially correct IMHO. However, you cannot dissmiss the role randmoness plays in our universe. Even though I control the odds in every casino game that I have created, I cannot control when such plays occur or how the player will experience the result. Given enough time, my games will play out to how I design them within a given tolerance. Regardless of how improbable I set the odds for the jackpots in my games they do occur. But that by no means suggests that the Earth came into being by design. Instead, it would seem that life is a deliberate act of randomness that is guarenteed to occur given enough time.

 

ill point out why you are wrong. an impact with the earth will never organize anything into a complex shape or structure or life of any kind. this fundamental flaw in your understanding of physics seems to be extremely prevalent in the scientific community. the notion is ridiculous and unacceptable.

 

throw some tobacco on the ground and a rolling paper along side of it and ask yourself how long before a cigarette forms. it will never happen.

 

i can say the life cannot happen as a result of chance... you however cannot say it did. end of discussion. i already proved this point adequately using Newtonian determinism.

 

@swansont you dont think a planet with an obliquity that "is not" primordial being so consistent as to vary only a degree or two back and forth within a 26 thousand yr period to be rare? surely you jest.

 

@edatharan the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution according to abiogenesis. i agree with that conclusion. origin of life and evolution have nothing to do with each other.

Edited October 7, 2011 by himoura

[Daedalus]

ill point out why you are wrong. an impact with the earth will never organize anything into a complex shape or structure or life of any kind. this fundamental flaw in your understanding of physics seems to be extremely prevalent in the scientific community. the notion is ridiculous and unacceptable.

 

Apearantly, you do not keep up with mainstream science. You haven't even considered ocean impacts which vaporize millions of gallons of water, adding energy to the organic soup which "might" help create organic molecules:

 

http://www.scientifi...roil-meteorites

 

The above information is based on the experiments performed by Miller and Urey:

 

http://en.wikipedia....Urey_experiment

 

You try to argue that I do not understand physics by making vague statements without showing why I am incorrect. I suggest that you become thoroughly familiar with the subject matter you are refuting, instead of attacking those who make valid points based on scientific evidence.

 

throw some tobacco on the ground and a rolling paper along side of it and ask yourself how long before a cigarette forms. it will never happen.

 

Your analogy is horrible. A meteorite impact is not the same as throwing tobacco on the ground alongside a rolling paper in hopes that a cigarette will form. The meteorite impact puts energy into the system. The statement you made does not allow the ingredients of a cigarette to form a cigarette. This clearly indicates that you do not understand the physics involved and lack basic knowledge of biology and organic chemistry.

 

i can say the life cannot happen as a result of chance... you however cannot say it did. end of discussion. i already proved this point adequately using Newtonian determinism.

 

Yes, you could say that life cannot happen as a result of chance. But, that does not allow us to conclude that you are correct and it definitely does not end the discussion just because you believe that you have adequately applied Newtonian determinism. My statement in regards to meteorite impacts is more in line with Newtonian determinism than you just stating that you are correct. I have shown that meteorites apply energy into a system, which might generate the means for life to form (i.e. The cause and effect of an ocean impact and the environmental changes following such event which might allow organic molecules to form). However, there is no guarentee that such an impact will form these molecules which leads us to the chance of such things occurring and the probability that life will form due to these, or any other, events.

 

Also, you did not acknowledge that I gave you partial credit in that life forming was too good for chance alone. The point I made was that it takes both, chance and predefined laws of physics, for life to form. This follows my belief that the universe is so perfectly balanced that it is also unbalanced (chaos and order). If the laws of physics did not allow life to form, then we wouldn't be here today debating your topic. You are arguing that life did not form by chance, when I am stating that it was by chance that life formed on Earth due to the probability that our planet met the criteria.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Daedalus

[himoura]

Apearantly, you do not keep up with mainstream science. You haven't even considered ocean impacts which vaporize millions of gallons of water, adding energy to the organic soup which "might" help create organic molecules:

 

http://www.scientifi...roil-meteorites

 

The above information is based on the experiments performed by Miller and Urey:

 

http://en.wikipedia....Urey_experiment

 

You try to argue that I do not understand physics by making vague statements without showing why I am incorrect. I suggest that you become thoroughly familiar with the subject matter you are refuting, instead of attacking those who make valid points based on scientific evidence.

 

 

 

Your analogy is horrible. A meteorite impact is not the same as throwing tobacco on the ground alongside a rolling paper in hopes that a cigarette will form. The meteorite impact puts energy into the system. The statement you made does not allow the ingredients of a cigarette to form a cigarette. This clearly indicates that you do not understand the physics involved and lack basic knowledge of biology and organic chemistry.

 

 

 

Yes, you could say that life cannot happen as a result of chance. But, that does not allow us to conclude that you are correct and it definitely does not end the discussion just because you believe that you have adequately applied Newtonian determinism. My statement in regards to meteorite impacts is more in line with Newtonian determinism than you just stating that you are correct. I have shown that meteorites apply energy into a system, which might generate the means for life to form (i.e. The cause and effect of an ocean impact and the environmental changes following such event which might allow organic molecules to form). However, there is no guarentee that such an impact will form these molecules which leads us to the chance of such things occurring and the probability that life will form due to these, or any other, events.

 

Also, you did not acknowledge that I gave you partial credit in that life forming was too good for chance alone. The point I made was that it takes both, chance and predefined laws of physics, for life to form. This follows my belief that the universe is so perfectly balanced that it is also unbalanced (chaos and order). If the laws of physics did not allow life to form, then we wouldn't be here today debating your topic. You are arguing that life did not form by chance, when I am stating that it was by chance that life formed on Earth due to the probability that our planet met the criteria.

 

 

i recant part of what i said about the meteor impact. if you are suggesting that messenger RNA could have been carried to this planet via a meteor impact than i have no problem with that. if your not than my analogy is not horrible at all. the irony here is that if you are suggesting that RNA was carried to this planet via an impact than that constitutes panspermia which is not accepted in any scientific circles. Crick believed in this and im getting to the point where i can see it as being the only possibility myself.

 

look the theory of variance is not about the processes of life itself on a biological level. i have tried repeatedly to drive this point to no avail. the theory of variance is about astrophysics and the consistency with which the earth has been able to sustain life for 4.5 billion years. it has nothing to do with evolution or the biological processes that formed life outside of providing an environment in which life can thrive.

 

and your exactly right about me saying that life cannot exist as a chance and that i have to prove it. exactly... i am working on that now and it isnt going to happen in a day. i am sorry i do not have more time to devote to this but between work, finishing my first album, writing two books, fixing my bmw myself and my personal life i am burning the candle at both ends. i will come back when i have worked out the details on how to prove this using QM.

 

i am not trying to end the discussion at all. i really appreciate your input greatly and everyone else on this forum.. you guys rock. and you may even disprove this before i get a chance to prove it. thats the point.

 

i do apologize for not acknowledging any credit. i am not kidding when i said i am burning the candle at both ends. i am writing a song write now and my head is a little fuzzy.

Edited October 7, 2011 by himoura

[himoura]

I have been thinking a lot about the theory of variance lately and have come to a conclusion on this.

 

It is easy to prove this theory beyond reasonable doubt and the funny part is that i do not even need complicated mathematics to do it.

 

the answer is simple. the Earths ability to support life is devoid of variance. i do not have to bother trying to calculate something that doesn't factor. for variance to not factor at all that would mean everything is pre-determined and Quantum Mechanics does not truly exist which is impossible.

 

for evidence i cite the "faint young sun problem".

 

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

 

If you scroll down near the bottom you will see a small article as titled above. the geological record of the earth clearly shows us that since life first began to crop up (4.5 billion yrs ago), the Earth has managed to maintain the perfect climate to support it. 3.8 - 2.5 billion years ago the sun would have been to faint at 75% to provide the heat necessary to keep liquid solid on the surface. I think that scientists trying to explain this dilemma with green house effect is ridiculous. not only is it impossible to validate but its not scientific at all. even if this explanation were correct there would have to be periods of temperature drops as the atmosphere adjusts. for it to remain so consistent is just not possible. the sheer number of scenarios we are all just chalking up to luck to explain the earths track record has quickly run outside of reason.

 

the fact that the Earth somehow was able to maintain such a consistent global temperature throughout this period is really all the proof i need. its just not possible. It is my conclusion that the theory of variance will never be dis-proven, at least not for a very long time if at all.