Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Most likely way life was created

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 1:54:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If this isn't the most interesting Wiki page in existence... well then show me a better one: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The "Timeline of the Far Future" predicts that, over the next half-billion years, we'll encounter all types of natural disasters and if those don't kill us, then it predicts that in 600 million years the Sun will kill 99% of the life on Earth.

It's safe to say that we have until about then (or else much less) to figure out a way to propagate ourselves. Unless we uncover some miracle source of energy which allows us to construct interstellar vehicles, which I don't believe we will, we'll need to find another way. I think the way we will survive is obvious: we will construct billions of missiles, we will fill them with germs, and we will shoot them into space. Perhaps one of these missiles will, by chance, some day escape the solar system and end up on another planet like our own. When the germs (i.e., bacteria and viruses) are exposed to the atmosphere of said planet, they will propagate rapidly and then slowly evolve to create us once again.

Nobody can produce a more likely scenario than this. Creationists are whackos, and if you think amino acids just mix together by chance and then get struck with lightning then you're not much smarter than Creationists. If we can't construct even the simplest life-form in the laboratory purposefully, then how could life possibly just arrange itself by chance naturally?

This begs the question: if life is propagated in this fashion - intelligent life spreads it when its planet goes extinct - then how was it started originally? Well, for that we must appeal to the Weak Anthropic Principle.

The chances of life arranging itself naturally are incredibly small. Not small in the sense that it takes billions of stars and planets to accomplish it, I'm talking small in the sense that it takes probably a googolplex planets and stars to accomplish it. IOWs, many universes like our own, countless googols of universes like our own, will live and die without a single microbe ever being created. But quantum mechanics insists that, eventually, a random fluctuation will produce something of great order and complexity. This is how the seed of life is created originally, and it's much too rare to occur on timescales like that of our universe. 15 billion years is but a wink of an eye in terms of creating something as ordered as, say, a Boltzmann Brain (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I doubt Boltzmann Brains are what we are, but I think the basic manner in which they are created would work to create the seed of life (which is far less complex than a brain).

So life began as a combination of the Uncertainty Principle and the Weak Anthropic Principle. It is perpetuated within a universe, once it is created, by intelligent life spreading germs throughout the cosmos. We should have several more opportunities to propagate ourselves before the stars in our universe are extinguished, assuming we are correct that they will eventually all die out. When our universe does die, we will wait a googolplex (give or take, lol) units of time (what unit you use on this scale is meaningless, whether it is a planck-second or a billion-year increment) for the seed to arrange itself again, and you and I will wake up the instant we die as a newborn babies in a different universe, so far removed from our last one that it might as well just be the first time again.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 2:35:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The chances of life arranging itself naturally are incredibly small? What if the chances of life arranging itself naturally are incredibly large? Then, if that were the case it would be no surprise that here we are.

There is some exciting new evidence that indicates that life may be a natural product of entropy further dispelling the idea that we are somehow unique.

We are born of and from the universe, it is our creator. The universe wasn't made and then we were added later, we are a natural product of it, we grew out of it like a plant grows out of soil.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 3:58:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 1:54:55 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
If this isn't the most interesting Wiki page in existence... well then show me a better one: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Its great.

The "Timeline of the Far Future" predicts that, over the next half-billion years, we'll encounter all types of natural disasters and if those don't kill us, then it predicts that in 600 million years the Sun will kill 99% of the life on Earth.

I agree.

It's safe to say that we have until about then (or else much less) to figure out a way to propagate ourselves. Unless we uncover some miracle source of energy which allows us to construct interstellar vehicles, which I don't believe we will, we'll need to find another way. I think the way we will survive is obvious: we will construct billions of missiles, we will fill them with germs, and we will shoot them into space. Perhaps one of these missiles will, by chance, some day escape the solar system and end up on another planet like our own. When the germs (i.e., bacteria and viruses) are exposed to the atmosphere of said planet, they will propagate rapidly and then slowly evolve to create us once again.

I believe by that time, we would have mastered interestellar traveling, teleportation, or we could even construct a cool science fiction structure that stabilizes the Sun.

Nobody can produce a more likely scenario than this.
Creationists are whackos, and if you think amino acids just mix together by chance and then get struck with lightning then you're not much smarter than Creationists.

I wouldn't call the main supporters of abiogenesis exactly "fools"... Generaly, those scientists that know A LOT about biology and biochemistry, are never creationists. That should give you something to think about.

If we can't construct even the simplest life-form in the laboratory purposefully, then how could life possibly just arrange itself by chance naturally?

If we can not make the skies snow, how could the sky create snow by itself and fall naturaly!? If we can not create black holes, how can they create themselves naturaly!? Tell me!!

This begs the question: if life is propagated in this fashion - intelligent life spreads it when its planet goes extinct - then how was it started originally? Well, for that we must appeal to the Weak Anthropic Principle.

The chances of life arranging itself naturally are incredibly small. Not small in the sense that it takes billions of stars and planets to accomplish it, I'm talking small in the sense that it takes probably a googolplex planets and stars to accomplish it.

And this data is from...? The truth is that from the... well, the 2 planets we have explored, life is on one of them. So not exactly "incredibly small" atm.

IOWs, many universes like our own, countless googols of universes like our own, will live and die without a single microbe ever being created.

lol. So much nonsensical speculation here.

But quantum mechanics insists that, eventually, a random fluctuation will produce something of great order and complexity. This is how the seed of life is created originally, and it's much too rare to occur on timescales like that of our universe. 15 billion years is but a wink of an eye in terms of creating something as ordered as, say, a Boltzmann Brain (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I doubt Boltzmann Brains are what we are, but I think the basic manner in which they are created would work to create the seed of life (which is far less complex than a brain).

I don't know about a Boltzmann Brain, but a human brain can effectively be created out of chaotic matter and energy in roughly 14 billion years as demonstrated by our existence. That assuming we are the first human-like brain to arise in the universe. For some other people, godly-nonphysical-brains capable of magic, are also possible, go figure.

So life began as a combination of the Uncertainty Principle and the Weak Anthropic Principle. It is perpetuated within a universe, once it is created, by intelligent life spreading germs throughout the cosmos. We should have several more opportunities to propagate ourselves before the stars in our universe are extinguished, assuming we are correct that they will eventually all die out. When our universe does die, we will wait a googolplex (give or take, lol) units of time (what unit you use on this scale is meaningless, whether it is a planck-second or a billion-year increment) for the seed to arrange itself again, and you and I will wake up the instant we die as a newborn babies in a different universe, so far removed from our last one that it might as well just be the first time again.

But this seems quite pointless. I mean, why would we shoot bacteria to the universe? To plague other planets with microbes became a very important mission of our existence when I was not looking?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2015 5:30:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 2:35:25 AM, Accipiter wrote:
The chances of life arranging itself naturally are incredibly small? What if the chances of life arranging itself naturally are incredibly large? Then, if that were the case it would be no surprise that here we are.

I think the statistics you are inquiring about exist in rudimentary form. Mathematicians can give round estimates to the probabilities of random, spontaneous entropy decrease. The numbers are absolutely enormous, they make the universe's lifetime (15 BY) seem like planck-seconds. A Boltzmann Brain takes 10^10^50 years to create. Do you understand that number at all? A googol is more than the entire amount of particles in the universe. That number is 10^100th power. The amount of years to achieve a spontaneous entropy decrease to form a human brain is 10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th power. For perspective, the smallest possible unit of time, the planck-second, is 10^-44th power. This time-scale is so fast that the laws of physics are nearly devoid of meaning, you could pass through walls and come back again and it wouldn't even "matter" to physics. To get an appreciable chance of seeing an entropy decrease of the scope to create a human brain, one would have to see a time-lapse of the entire life of the universe (~15 BY) every planck-second.

Now, a brain is significantly more complex than a germ, so the number wouldn't be quite so large, but we're talking about only knocking off a few zeros. Suffice to say, the chances are about as good as you winning the powerball lottery (10^8) five times tomorrow as life being able to develop spontaneously in our universe.

There is some exciting new evidence that indicates that life may be a natural product of entropy further dispelling the idea that we are somehow unique.

Explain your evidence.

We are born of and from the universe, it is our creator. The universe wasn't made and then we were added later, we are a natural product of it, we grew out of it like a plant grows out of soil.

Or perhaps the universe is a product of our consciousness.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 3:33:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 5:30:06 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/26/2015 2:35:25 AM, Accipiter wrote:
The chances of life arranging itself naturally are incredibly small? What if the chances of life arranging itself naturally are incredibly large? Then, if that were the case it would be no surprise that here we are.

I think the statistics you are inquiring about exist in rudimentary form. Mathematicians can give round estimates to the probabilities of random, spontaneous entropy decrease. The numbers are absolutely enormous, they make the universe's lifetime (15 BY) seem like planck-seconds. A Boltzmann Brain takes 10^10^50 years to create. Do you understand that number at all? A googol is more than the entire amount of particles in the universe. That number is 10^100th power. The amount of years to achieve a spontaneous entropy decrease to form a human brain is 10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th power. For perspective, the smallest possible unit of time, the planck-second, is 10^-44th power. This time-scale is so fast that the laws of physics are nearly devoid of meaning, you could pass through walls and come back again and it wouldn't even "matter" to physics. To get an appreciable chance of seeing an entropy decrease of the scope to create a human brain, one would have to see a time-lapse of the entire life of the universe (~15 BY) every planck-second.

Now, a brain is significantly more complex than a germ, so the number wouldn't be quite so large, but we're talking about only knocking off a few zeros. Suffice to say, the chances are about as good as you winning the powerball lottery (10^8) five times tomorrow as life being able to develop spontaneously in our universe.

There is some exciting new evidence that indicates that life may be a natural product of entropy further dispelling the idea that we are somehow unique.

Explain your evidence.

We are born of and from the universe, it is our creator. The universe wasn't made and then we were added later, we are a natural product of it, we grew out of it like a plant grows out of soil.

Or perhaps the universe is a product of our consciousness.

"A Boltzmann Brain takes 10^10^50 years to create."

Who says Boltzmann is right? Obviously he's wrong because as I said before, here we are.

This explains the entropy thing I was talking about.

https://www.quantamagazine.org...

"Or perhaps the universe is a product of our consciousness."

OK sure, why not.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 3:50:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 3:58:22 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:54:55 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
If this isn't the most interesting Wiki page in existence... well then show me a better one: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Its great.

The "Timeline of the Far Future" predicts that, over the next half-billion years, we'll encounter all types of natural disasters and if those don't kill us, then it predicts that in 600 million years the Sun will kill 99% of the life on Earth.

I agree.

It's safe to say that we have until about then (or else much less) to figure out a way to propagate ourselves. Unless we uncover some miracle source of energy which allows us to construct interstellar vehicles, which I don't believe we will, we'll need to find another way. I think the way we will survive is obvious: we will construct billions of missiles, we will fill them with germs, and we will shoot them into space. Perhaps one of these missiles will, by chance, some day escape the solar system and end up on another planet like our own. When the germs (i.e., bacteria and viruses) are exposed to the atmosphere of said planet, they will propagate rapidly and then slowly evolve to create us once again.

I believe by that time, we would have mastered interestellar traveling, teleportation, or we could even construct a cool science fiction structure that stabilizes the Sun.

Nobody can produce a more likely scenario than this.
Creationists are whackos, and if you think amino acids just mix together by chance and then get struck with lightning then you're not much smarter than Creationists.

I wouldn't call the main supporters of abiogenesis exactly "fools"... Generaly, those scientists that know A LOT about biology and biochemistry, are never creationists. That should give you something to think about.

If we can't construct even the simplest life-form in the laboratory purposefully, then how could life possibly just arrange itself by chance naturally?

If we can not make the skies snow, how could the sky create snow by itself and fall naturaly!? If we can not create black holes, how can they create themselves naturaly!? Tell me!!

This begs the question: if life is propagated in this fashion - intelligent life spreads it when its planet goes extinct - then how was it started originally? Well, for that we must appeal to the Weak Anthropic Principle.

The chances of life arranging itself naturally are incredibly small. Not small in the sense that it takes billions of stars and planets to accomplish it, I'm talking small in the sense that it takes probably a googolplex planets and stars to accomplish it.

And this data is from...? The truth is that from the... well, the 2 planets we have explored, life is on one of them. So not exactly "incredibly small" atm.

IOWs, many universes like our own, countless googols of universes like our own, will live and die without a single microbe ever being created.

lol. So much nonsensical speculation here.

But quantum mechanics insists that, eventually, a random fluctuation will produce something of great order and complexity. This is how the seed of life is created originally, and it's much too rare to occur on timescales like that of our universe. 15 billion years is but a wink of an eye in terms of creating something as ordered as, say, a Boltzmann Brain (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I doubt Boltzmann Brains are what we are, but I think the basic manner in which they are created would work to create the seed of life (which is far less complex than a brain).

I don't know about a Boltzmann Brain, but a human brain can effectively be created out of chaotic matter and energy in roughly 14 billion years as demonstrated by our existence. That assuming we are the first human-like brain to arise in the universe. For some other people, godly-nonphysical-brains capable of magic, are also possible, go figure.

So life began as a combination of the Uncertainty Principle and the Weak Anthropic Principle. It is perpetuated within a universe, once it is created, by intelligent life spreading germs throughout the cosmos. We should have several more opportunities to propagate ourselves before the stars in our universe are extinguished, assuming we are correct that they will eventually all die out. When our universe does die, we will wait a googolplex (give or take, lol) units of time (what unit you use on this scale is meaningless, whether it is a planck-second or a billion-year increment) for the seed to arrange itself again, and you and I will wake up the instant we die as a newborn babies in a different universe, so far removed from our last one that it might as well just be the first time again.

But this seems quite pointless. I mean, why would we shoot bacteria to the universe? To plague other planets with microbes became a very important mission of our existence when I was not looking?

A collision between a planet with life on it and some other large body like a huge asteroid will throw rocks containing biological matter in to space with enough speed to cross our entire galaxy in much less than 13.8 billion years so life coming from elsewhere can't be ruled out and is less improbable than common people might think.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:01:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 3:58:22 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 1/26/2015 1:54:55 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
If this isn't the most interesting Wiki page in existence... well then show me a better one: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Its great.

Don't patronize me.

The "Timeline of the Far Future" predicts that, over the next half-billion years, we'll encounter all types of natural disasters and if those don't kill us, then it predicts that in 600 million years the Sun will kill 99% of the life on Earth.

I agree.

Kind of makes you look at environmental destruction a bit differently doesn't it? I mean, volcanoes are going to explode, the Earth is gonna shake, the skies will rain death on us... kinda takes the air out of my sails on the subject. Of course the time-scales still dictate environmental prudence, I know...

It's safe to say that we have until about then (or else much less) to figure out a way to propagate ourselves. Unless we uncover some miracle source of energy which allows us to construct interstellar vehicles, which I don't believe we will, we'll need to find another way. I think the way we will survive is obvious: we will construct billions of missiles, we will fill them with germs, and we will shoot them into space. Perhaps one of these missiles will, by chance, some day escape the solar system and end up on another planet like our own. When the germs (i.e., bacteria and viruses) are exposed to the atmosphere of said planet, they will propagate rapidly and then slowly evolve to create us once again.

I believe by that time, we would have mastered interestellar traveling, teleportation, or we could even construct a cool science fiction structure that stabilizes the Sun.

I have to disagree with you on those, I believe we will not invent any of those.

Nobody can produce a more likely scenario than this.
Creationists are whackos, and if you think amino acids just mix together by chance and then get struck with lightning then you're not much smarter than Creationists.

I wouldn't call the main supporters of abiogenesis exactly "fools"... Generaly, those scientists that know A LOT about biology and biochemistry, are never creationists. That should give you something to think about.

Well yeah, but so far scientists are no better off at finding the spark.

If we can't construct even the simplest life-form in the laboratory purposefully, then how could life possibly just arrange itself by chance naturally?

If we can not make the skies snow, how could the sky create snow by itself and fall naturaly!? If we can not create black holes, how can they create themselves naturaly!? Tell me!!

We can make snow artificially, the formation of black holes is pretty-well laid out we just don't have a few good-sized stars to crush together to make one yet...

This begs the question: if life is propagated in this fashion - intelligent life spreads it when its planet goes extinct - then how was it started originally? Well, for that we must appeal to the Weak Anthropic Principle.

The chances of life arranging itself naturally are incredibly small. Not small in the sense that it takes billions of stars and planets to accomplish it, I'm talking small in the sense that it takes probably a googolplex planets and stars to accomplish it.

And this data is from...? The truth is that from the... well, the 2 planets we have explored, life is on one of them. So not exactly "incredibly small" atm.

Life isn't showing up anywhere we've looked yet, I don't think we need to set foot on them to count them...

IOWs, many universes like our own, countless googols of universes like our own, will live and die without a single microbe ever being created.

lol. So much nonsensical speculation here.

Yeah but I sound smart.

But quantum mechanics insists that, eventually, a random fluctuation will produce something of great order and complexity. This is how the seed of life is created originally, and it's much too rare to occur on timescales like that of our universe. 15 billion years is but a wink of an eye in terms of creating something as ordered as, say, a Boltzmann Brain (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I doubt Boltzmann Brains are what we are, but I think the basic manner in which they are created would work to create the seed of life (which is far less complex than a brain).

I don't know about a Boltzmann Brain, but a human brain can effectively be created out of chaotic matter and energy in roughly 14 billion years as demonstrated by our existence. That assuming we are the first human-like brain to arise in the universe. For some other people, godly-nonphysical-brains capable of magic, are also possible, go figure.

You have such a blatant disregard for the anthropic principle... life exists on 50% of the planets, 100% of the universes... What about the fact that we only see things like that because that's where we are? As Stephen Hawking puts it, "it is similar to a rich person looking at their neighborhood and not seeing any poverty." If a googolplex universes were created, and only one of them happened to create life, a person living there might make the assumption you do and assume life must exist in any universe.

So life began as a combination of the Uncertainty Principle and the Weak Anthropic Principle. It is perpetuated within a universe, once it is created, by intelligent life spreading germs throughout the cosmos. We should have several more opportunities to propagate ourselves before the stars in our universe are extinguished, assuming we are correct that they will eventually all die out. When our universe does die, we will wait a googolplex (give or take, lol) units of time (what unit you use on this scale is meaningless, whether it is a planck-second or a billion-year increment) for the seed to arrange itself again, and you and I will wake up the instant we die as a newborn babies in a different universe, so far removed from our last one that it might as well just be the first time again.

But this seems quite pointless. I mean, why would we shoot bacteria to the universe? To plague other planets with microbes became a very important mission of our existence when I was not looking?

Because it is a method of self-propagation, much like sexual reproduction. It is the only sensible, viable option to do so that we have at the moment.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 6:15:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 3:33:58 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/26/2015 5:30:06 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/26/2015 2:35:25 AM, Accipiter wrote:
The chances of life arranging itself naturally are incredibly small? What if the chances of life arranging itself naturally are incredibly large? Then, if that were the case it would be no surprise that here we are.

I think the statistics you are inquiring about exist in rudimentary form. Mathematicians can give round estimates to the probabilities of random, spontaneous entropy decrease. The numbers are absolutely enormous, they make the universe's lifetime (15 BY) seem like planck-seconds. A Boltzmann Brain takes 10^10^50 years to create. Do you understand that number at all? A googol is more than the entire amount of particles in the universe. That number is 10^100th power. The amount of years to achieve a spontaneous entropy decrease to form a human brain is 10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th power. For perspective, the smallest possible unit of time, the planck-second, is 10^-44th power. This time-scale is so fast that the laws of physics are nearly devoid of meaning, you could pass through walls and come back again and it wouldn't even "matter" to physics. To get an appreciable chance of seeing an entropy decrease of the scope to create a human brain, one would have to see a time-lapse of the entire life of the universe (~15 BY) every planck-second.

Now, a brain is significantly more complex than a germ, so the number wouldn't be quite so large, but we're talking about only knocking off a few zeros. Suffice to say, the chances are about as good as you winning the powerball lottery (10^8) five times tomorrow as life being able to develop spontaneously in our universe.

There is some exciting new evidence that indicates that life may be a natural product of entropy further dispelling the idea that we are somehow unique.

Explain your evidence.

We are born of and from the universe, it is our creator. The universe wasn't made and then we were added later, we are a natural product of it, we grew out of it like a plant grows out of soil.

Or perhaps the universe is a product of our consciousness.

"A Boltzmann Brain takes 10^10^50 years to create."

Who says Boltzmann is right? Obviously he's wrong because as I said before, here we are.

Boltzmann's ideas are more of a thought exercise than anything else, but we can look at random quantum fluctuations and very roughly predict how long it would take for them to happen to come together to form something interesting.

This explains the entropy thing I was talking about.

https://www.quantamagazine.org...

Excellent article! If this guy is correct he will be Charles Darwins' successor. I will be following his research very closely! But until his theories gain more merit, I am going to assume he hasn't found the spark of life yet.

"Or perhaps the universe is a product of our consciousness."

OK sure, why not.

You provided me with a very interesting article, so I am going to provide you with a stimulating video on the subject. It takes Immanuel Kant's ideas, explains how modern physics resonates with them, and is simply remarkable.

https://www.youtube.com...

Freedo actually introduced me to this video a few years back, I've watched it a couple times and referenced parts of it many times. I think I'm gonna watch it again. It's an hour long but man is it worth it...

[This is actually a new, graphical version of the lecture, you can look up the normal lecture on youtube as well but the audience is kind of annoying so this one looks to be better.]
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 5:28:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 6:01:37 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Don't patronize me.

Lol, I meant it, I find the page very interesting. I wasn't being sarcastic.

Kind of makes you look at environmental destruction a bit differently doesn't it? I mean, volcanoes are going to explode, the Earth is gonna shake, the skies will rain death on us... kinda takes the air out of my sails on the subject. Of course the time-scales still dictate environmental prudence, I know...

Well the thing is, enviromental destruction is the first step to our own destruction, since sadly we can not survive without the environment. If the sun or a volcano or an alien destroys our environment, well, we can not really do much about it. But destroying the environment ourselves? That can and must be prevented

It's safe to say that we have until about then (or else much less) to figure out a way to propagate ourselves. Unless we uncover some miracle source of energy which allows us to construct interstellar vehicles, which I don't believe we will, we'll need to find another way. I think the way we will survive is obvious: we will construct billions of missiles, we will fill them with germs, and we will shoot them into space. Perhaps one of these missiles will, by chance, some day escape the solar system and end up on another planet like our own. When the germs (i.e., bacteria and viruses) are exposed to the atmosphere of said planet, they will propagate rapidly and then slowly evolve to create us once again.

I believe by that time, we would have mastered interestellar traveling, teleportation, or we could even construct a cool science fiction structure that stabilizes the Sun.

I have to disagree with you on those, I believe we will not invent any of those.

Because you think those are impossible? Or because you don't feel we have enough time?

Nobody can produce a more likely scenario than this.
Creationists are whackos, and if you think amino acids just mix together by chance and then get struck with lightning then you're not much smarter than Creationists.

I wouldn't call the main supporters of abiogenesis exactly "fools"... Generaly, those scientists that know A LOT about biology and biochemistry, are never creationists. That should give you something to think about.

Well yeah, but so far scientists are no better off at finding the spark.

Oh but they are indeed better at looking for it.

If we can't construct even the simplest life-form in the laboratory purposefully, then how could life possibly just arrange itself by chance naturally?

If we can not make the skies snow, how could the sky create snow by itself and fall naturaly!? If we can not create black holes, how can they create themselves naturaly!? Tell me!!

We can make snow artificially, the formation of black holes is pretty-well laid out we just don't have a few good-sized stars to crush together to make one yet...

The formation of life is also pretty well made out. We just can't make it happen. And about snow, can we make the skies snow whenever we want? Didn't know we could. But anyway, I'm sure we couldn't 50 years ago. The point is, nature very often does things we can not do, not vice-versa as you suggested.

This begs the question: if life is propagated in this fashion - intelligent life spreads it when its planet goes extinct - then how was it started originally? Well, for that we must appeal to the Weak Anthropic Principle.

The chances of life arranging itself naturally are incredibly small. Not small in the sense that it takes billions of stars and planets to accomplish it, I'm talking small in the sense that it takes probably a googolplex planets and stars to accomplish it.

And this data is from...? The truth is that from the... well, the 2 planets we have explored, life is on one of them. So not exactly "incredibly small" atm.

Life isn't showing up anywhere we've looked yet, I don't think we need to set foot on them to count them...

Well, you don't have to foot on the planet if you are looking for a building. But what about bacteria? We are looking for bacteria on mars in situ precisely because we can not do it in any other way.

IOWs, many universes like our own, countless googols of universes like our own, will live and die without a single microbe ever being created.

lol. So much nonsensical speculation here.

Yeah but I sound smart.

Hahaha. Yes you do.

But quantum mechanics insists that, eventually, a random fluctuation will produce something of great order and complexity. This is how the seed of life is created originally, and it's much too rare to occur on timescales like that of our universe. 15 billion years is but a wink of an eye in terms of creating something as ordered as, say, a Boltzmann Brain (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I doubt Boltzmann Brains are what we are, but I think the basic manner in which they are created would work to create the seed of life (which is far less complex than a brain).

I don't know about a Boltzmann Brain, but a human brain can effectively be created out of chaotic matter and energy in roughly 14 billion years as demonstrated by our existence. That assuming we are the first human-like brain to arise in the universe. For some other people, godly-nonphysical-brains capable of magic, are also possible, go figure.

You have such a blatant disregard for the anthropic principle... life exists on 50% of the planets, 100% of the universes... What about the fact that we only see things like that because that's where we are? As Stephen Hawking puts it, "it is similar to a rich person looking at their neighborhood and not seeing any poverty." If a googolplex universes were created, and only one of them happened to create life, a person living there might make the assumption you do and assume life must exist in any universe.

I undestand, although when every assumption made has zero evidence, I need to resort to data, which shows exactly what you have said: life is on 100% of the universes we know, and so far on 50% of the planets we have landed.

But this seems quite pointless. I mean, why would we shoot bacteria to the universe? To plague other planets with microbes became a very important mission of our existence when I was not looking?

Because it is a method of self-propagation, much like sexual reproduction. It is the only sensible, viable option to do so that we have at the moment.

I see. I really don't care though. I mean, my empathy is not enough to care about life forms that earth's spores will make on another planet a million years from now. I don't see any reason to propagate life through the universe. If any, I want to propagate myself. So what about cloning us in a zygote, send the zygote to the habitable planet, and with the zygotes a machine that re-organizes neuronal paths in order to give those people our memories, personality, etc. I wonder if it would feel like I'm reborn, or if that would be just a cheap copy of me... Crazy stuff.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 9:33:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 1:54:55 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
If this isn't the most interesting Wiki page in existence... well then show me a better one: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The "Timeline of the Far Future" predicts that, over the next half-billion years, we'll encounter all types of natural disasters and if those don't kill us, then it predicts that in 600 million years the Sun will kill 99% of the life on Earth.

It's safe to say that we have until about then (or else much less) to figure out a way to propagate ourselves. Unless we uncover some miracle source of energy which allows us to construct interstellar vehicles, which I don't believe we will, we'll need to find another way. I think the way we will survive is obvious: we will construct billions of missiles, we will fill them with germs, and we will shoot them into space. Perhaps one of these missiles will, by chance, some day escape the solar system and end up on another planet like our own. When the germs (i.e., bacteria and viruses) are exposed to the atmosphere of said planet, they will propagate rapidly and then slowly evolve to create us once again.

I think we have a greater chance of wiping ourselves out. I mean, we barely survived the cold war, and that was just 40 years ago. just a million years of human survival seems dubious at best. Also... the fermi paradox isn't something to sniff at.

Nobody can produce a more likely scenario than this. Creationists are whackos, and if you think amino acids just mix together by chance and then get struck with lightning then you're not much smarter than Creationists. If we can't construct even the simplest life-form in the laboratory purposefully, then how could life possibly just arrange itself by chance naturally?

If you don't have the first clue about abiogenesis and early evolution theories, then do yourself a favor and don't try to comment on them. You are making an arse of yourself with that paragraph.

This begs the question: if life is propagated in this fashion - intelligent life spreads it when its planet goes extinct - then how was it started originally? Well, for that we must appeal to the Weak Anthropic Principle.

It's an important consideration, although it says more about the conditions we would expect to find if we exist to observe it. The antropic principle states we would pretty much always expect to find conditions that makes the appearance of observers possible... otherwise nobody would be there to ask the question.

The chances of life arranging itself naturally are incredibly small.

Who says life ever had to "arrange itself". Again, don't bother commenting on origin of life theories if you don't have a clue what you are talking about. FYI most OOL theories posit life as emergent, and not "arranged".

Not small in the sense that it takes billions of stars and planets to accomplish it, I'm talking small in the sense that it takes probably a googolplex planets and stars to accomplish it. IOWs, many universes like our own, countless googols of universes like our own, will live and die without a single microbe ever being created. But quantum mechanics insists that, eventually, a random fluctuation will produce something of great order and complexity. This is how the seed of life is created originally, and it's much too rare to occur on timescales like that of our universe. 15 billion years is but a wink of an eye in terms of creating something as ordered as, say, a Boltzmann Brain (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I doubt Boltzmann Brains are what we are, but I think the basic manner in which they are created would work to create the seed of life (which is far less complex than a brain).

Life doesn't actually have a whole lot of thermodynamic order. The complexity we see in the brain, etc don't actually work out to very low numbers if you do the math. A much bigger question is the origin of the universe, which really did have an exceptionally low entropy. The origin of the universe is a much bigger mystery than the posited "assembly of a brain", since some models of the universe actually have the likelihood of a brain appearing as much greater than a universe appearing. Since the universe had a much lower entropy than any brain, and therefore is less likely to happen.

Thats assuming that the universe is a spontaneous bubble of low entropy, which is akin to all the gas molecules in a room for a few moments just randomly crowding into a cup, leaving the rest of a room in a vacuum. It's fantastically unlikely at any point in time, but it is certainly possible.

So life began as a combination of the Uncertainty Principle and the Weak Anthropic Principle. It is perpetuated within a universe, once it is created, by intelligent life spreading germs throughout the cosmos. We should have several more opportunities to propagate ourselves before the stars in our universe are extinguished, assuming we are correct that they will eventually all die out. When our universe does die, we will wait a googolplex (give or take, lol) units of time (what unit you use on this scale is meaningless, whether it is a planck-second or a billion-year increment) for the seed to arrange itself again, and you and I will wake up the instant we die as a newborn babies in a different universe, so far removed from our last one that it might as well just be the first time again.

Depends on all the assumptions we make about the universe. Is the universe really flat, is it open, or closed. Is time emergent, or actual. Is energy emergent, or actual. Etc. Etc.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 1:32:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/26/2015 1:54:55 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
If this isn't the most interesting Wiki page in existence... well then show me a better one: http://en.wikipedia.org...

The "Timeline of the Far Future" predicts that, over the next half-billion years, we'll encounter all types of natural disasters and if those don't kill us, then it predicts that in 600 million years the Sun will kill 99% of the life on Earth.

I thought that was domestos that killed 99.999 percent of life in the universe.

It's safe to say that we have until about then (or else much less) to figure out a way to propagate ourselves. Unless we uncover some miracle source of energy which allows us to construct interstellar vehicles, which I don't believe we will, we'll need to find another way. I think the way we will survive is obvious: we will construct billions of missiles, we will fill them with germs, and we will shoot them into space. Perhaps one of these missiles will, by chance, some day escape the solar system and end up on another planet like our own. When the germs (i.e., bacteria and viruses) are exposed to the atmosphere of said planet, they will propagate rapidly and then slowly evolve to create us once again.

Nobody can produce a more likely scenario than this. Creationists are whackos, and if you think amino acids just mix together by chance and then get struck with lightning then you're not much smarter than Creationists. If we can't construct even the simplest life-form in the laboratory purposefully, then how could life possibly just arrange itself by chance naturally?

This begs the question: if life is propagated in this fashion - intelligent life spreads it when its planet goes extinct - then how was it started originally? Well, for that we must appeal to the Weak Anthropic Principle.

The chances of life arranging itself naturally are incredibly small. Not small in the sense that it takes billions of stars and planets to accomplish it, I'm talking small in the sense that it takes probably a googolplex planets and stars to accomplish it. IOWs, many universes like our own, countless googols of universes like our own, will live and die without a single microbe ever being created. But quantum mechanics insists that, eventually, a random fluctuation will produce something of great order and complexity. This is how the seed of life is created originally, and it's much too rare to occur on timescales like that of our universe. 15 billion years is but a wink of an eye in terms of creating something as ordered as, say, a Boltzmann Brain (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I doubt Boltzmann Brains are what we are, but I think the basic manner in which they are created would work to create the seed of life (which is far less complex than a brain).

So life began as a combination of the Uncertainty Principle and the Weak Anthropic Principle. It is perpetuated within a universe, once it is created, by intelligent life spreading germs throughout the cosmos. We should have several more opportunities to propagate ourselves before the stars in our universe are extinguished, assuming we are correct that they will eventually all die out. When our universe does die, we will wait a googolplex (give or take, lol) units of time (what unit you use on this scale is meaningless, whether it is a planck-second or a billion-year increment) for the seed to arrange itself again, and you and I will wake up the instant we die as a newborn babies in a different universe, so far removed from our last one that it might as well just be the first time again.

At the end of the day, life only comes from life. And until these whackos can discover the actual chemical composition of life, which they can't. otherwise they would be able to combine chemicals and create it. Then they have no right to say it would just form naturally.

They don't even now what is needed to be formed.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 3:28:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 6:15:42 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/27/2015 3:33:58 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 1/26/2015 5:30:06 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 1/26/2015 2:35:25 AM, Accipiter wrote:
The chances of life arranging itself naturally are incredibly small? What if the chances of life arranging itself naturally are incredibly large? Then, if that were the case it would be no surprise that here we are.

I think the statistics you are inquiring about exist in rudimentary form. Mathematicians can give round estimates to the probabilities of random, spontaneous entropy decrease. The numbers are absolutely enormous, they make the universe's lifetime (15 BY) seem like planck-seconds. A Boltzmann Brain takes 10^10^50 years to create. Do you understand that number at all? A googol is more than the entire amount of particles in the universe. That number is 10^100th power. The amount of years to achieve a spontaneous entropy decrease to form a human brain is 10^100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th power. For perspective, the smallest possible unit of time, the planck-second, is 10^-44th power. This time-scale is so fast that the laws of physics are nearly devoid of meaning, you could pass through walls and come back again and it wouldn't even "matter" to physics. To get an appreciable chance of seeing an entropy decrease of the scope to create a human brain, one would have to see a time-lapse of the entire life of the universe (~15 BY) every planck-second.

Now, a brain is significantly more complex than a germ, so the number wouldn't be quite so large, but we're talking about only knocking off a few zeros. Suffice to say, the chances are about as good as you winning the powerball lottery (10^8) five times tomorrow as life being able to develop spontaneously in our universe.

There is some exciting new evidence that indicates that life may be a natural product of entropy further dispelling the idea that we are somehow unique.

Explain your evidence.

We are born of and from the universe, it is our creator. The universe wasn't made and then we were added later, we are a natural product of it, we grew out of it like a plant grows out of soil.

Or perhaps the universe is a product of our consciousness.


"A Boltzmann Brain takes 10^10^50 years to create."

Who says Boltzmann is right? Obviously he's wrong because as I said before, here we are.

Boltzmann's ideas are more of a thought exercise than anything else, but we can look at random quantum fluctuations and very roughly predict how long it would take for them to happen to come together to form something interesting.

This explains the entropy thing I was talking about.

https://www.quantamagazine.org...

Excellent article! If this guy is correct he will be Charles Darwins' successor. I will be following his research very closely! But until his theories gain more merit, I am going to assume he hasn't found the spark of life yet.

"Or perhaps the universe is a product of our consciousness."

OK sure, why not.

You provided me with a very interesting article, so I am going to provide you with a stimulating video on the subject. It takes Immanuel Kant's ideas, explains how modern physics resonates with them, and is simply remarkable.

https://www.youtube.com...

Freedo actually introduced me to this video a few years back, I've watched it a couple times and referenced parts of it many times. I think I'm gonna watch it again. It's an hour long but man is it worth it...

[This is actually a new, graphical version of the lecture, you can look up the normal lecture on youtube as well but the audience is kind of annoying so this one looks to be better.]

Here is one I like.

http://www.ted.com...