Do You Believe That There's Life On Other Planets?

Do You Believe That There's Life On Other Planets?


  • Total voters
    59
Status
Not open for further replies.

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
.. and my response was a question asking for your clarification of your assumed context of your answer of the weak Anthropic Principle. The context is all important in order for a proposed answer to make sense.

I would think it was a reasonable (even obvious) question to ask you and then a reasonable set of logical consequences for us to test out the applicability of your proposed answer, no?
You misread the context. You misquoted me as saying, 'some part of the universe', when I actually was referring to the WAP in the abstract - I said, 'some part of a universe'. So the rest of your post seemed inapposite.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Why doesn't all life just give up and die? Wouldn't that be easier?
For the same reason that fire continues to burn while there are combustibles available.

Isn't that what all the chemicals want to do? Just relax?
There is a sense in which chemicals 'want' to reach their lowest energy state, and you could call that 'relaxing', but when there is an external source of 'free' (low entropy) energy, they tend to become excited, and can often only shed this extra energy by exciting other chemicals or using it to bind with them. In these conditions, given suitable chemicals, building complexity is often thermodynamically favourable, and complex subsystems dissipate energy more effectively and increase overall entropy more quickly than simple subsystems.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
For the same reason that fire continues to burn while there are combustibles available. There is a sense in which chemicals 'want' to reach their lowest energy state, and you could call that 'relaxing', but when there is an external source of 'free' (low entropy) energy, they tend to become excited, and can often only shed this extra energy by exciting other chemicals or using it to bind with them. In these conditions, given suitable chemicals, building complexity is often thermodynamically favorable, and complex subsystems dissipate energy more effectively and increase overall entropy more quickly than simple subsystems.

That's a pretty long law you've invented. Do you have a citation where amateurs or experts refer to that as the law of life? The Life increases entropy law? The complexity increases entropy law? Any scientific data showing that life increases entropy?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
That's a pretty long law you've invented. Do you have a citation where amateurs or experts refer to that as the law of life? The Life increases entropy law? The complexity increases entropy law? Any scientific data showing that life increases entropy?
As far as I know there is no 'law of life' just as there is no 'law of fire'. The increase in entropy by complex systems is a result of statistical mechanics (e.g. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics).

You don't need scientific data to see that life increases entropy - you eat low entropy energy-rich food to fuel your metabolism and produce high(er) entropy waste products, including heat.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
You misread the context. You misquoted me as saying, 'some part of the universe', when I actually was referring to the WAP in the abstract - I said, 'some part of a universe'. So the rest of your post seemed inapposite.
I misread nothing ..
'If intelligent observers are possible in some part of a universe', then they reside in an observable universe and therefore 'If life was possible but did not occur, there would be nobody to make such observations' - is still nonsensical because there is still one undistinguished observer you have completely ignored .. and that's the one doing the hypothesising, who must live in the observable universe!
Further, seeing as there is only one known type of 'life', then that undistinguished observer must live in our observable universe.

Waaayy too many hidden, assumed 'true', undistinguished assumptions here for this argument to hold up. (Unless you're a 'true believer', that is ..?)
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
I misread nothing ..
But you still managed to misquote me...?

'If intelligent observers are possible in some part of a universe',
then they reside in an observable universe and therefore 'If life was possible but did not occur, there would be nobody to make such observations' - is still nonsensical because there is still one undistinguished observer you have completely ignored .. and that's the one doing the hypothesising, who must live in the observable universe!
The description involved potential observers in hypothetical universes. My situation is irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
But you still managed to misquote me...?
.. and so you are the intelligent observer citing the WAP from your own experiences of the observable universe then? (Please clarify).
FrumiousBandersnatch said:
The description involved potential observers in hypothetical universes. My situation is irrelevant.
No .. its all important as far as citing the WAP as an answer to a question which uses operational definitions. We have to be able to relate to the experience, knowledge and thence language meanings, of the hypothesiser in order to understand what they mean. I do (and I think you also understand some of my meanings here?).. therefore I conclude they must be an intelligent human who resides in our observable universe.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
.. and so you are the intelligent observer citing the WAP from your own experiences of the observable universe then? (Please clarify).
I was referring to potential observers in hypothetical universes as examples of the WAP, not myself in this universe.

No .. its all important as far as citing the WAP as an answer to a question which uses operational definitions. We have to be able to relate to the experience, knowledge and thence language meanings, of the hypothesiser in order to understand what they mean. I do (and I think you also understand some of my meanings here?).. therefore I conclude they must be an intelligent human who resides in our observable universe.
When telling a story, the storyteller assumes that his audience understands what he is doing. Storytelling is possibly the most universal cultural activity throughout our history. I was telling a story about the WAP.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I was referring to potential observers in hypothetical universes as examples of the WAP, not myself in this universe.
The sooner our models start including ourselves in them, the more honest they'll be.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
When telling a story, the storyteller assumes that his audience understands what he is doing. Storytelling is possibly the most universal cultural activity throughout our history. I was telling a story about the WAP.
Thank you for admitting that its nothing more than just another story on top of all the other stories concerning untestable 'possibilities' .. (eg: such as all the other supernatural deity stories).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As far as I know there is no 'law of life'...

Thanks. That was my only point. Science is useless if it can't explain why life exists with data.
Dr Jeremy England wrote on his theory that thermodynamics was the reason for life, but that was 5 years ago and he's not expanded on his preliminary theory.
So you have a stumped PhD working on it. I just find it crazy that people don't see the problem with not understanding why life exists.

Seems like a screaming big hole to me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I'll just keep imagining what you are talking about and declare your point perfectly valid.

I'm talking about things like how strong the material is (I expect the plastic toy is stronger than the meat and bread of the real thing). Or do you think the difference in appearance is the only thing different between the two?
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Thanks. That was my only point. Science is useless if it can't explain why life exists with data.
That's just silly.
We've long established that life exists, (or 'is true'), from abundant objective observational data, without the need for any theory.

Science doesn't need an explanation for an observation of a phenomenon in order to be useful. Eg: Newton had no explanation for gravity (that took a couple of centuries before that came along) and yet his empirical formulae were instantly useful.

SkyWriting said:
I just find it crazy that people don't see the problem with not understanding why life exists.
So what?
The usefulness however, commences with 'the how' we came to the conclusion that it exists.

SkyWriting said:
Seems like a screaming big hole to me.
'Holes' are part of life! Its a useful starting point to become familiar with distinguishing them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Thanks. That was my only point. Science is useless if it can't explain why life exists with data.
Dr Jeremy England wrote on his theory that thermodynamics was the reason for life, but that was 5 years ago and he's not expanded on his preliminary theory.
So you have a stumped PhD working on it. I just find it crazy that people don't see the problem with not understanding why life exists.

Seems like a screaming big hole to me.
Scientists are working on discovering how life arose. All the evidence indicates it was the product of chemical interactions under specific conditions.

I'm sorry that you haven't understood why your idea that there should be a law for life is mistaken. Maybe someone else can explain in a way you can understand. Good luck!
 
Upvote 0

imisswarmth

Active Member
Sep 10, 2020
45
21
55
City
✟7,964.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I think we are all scientists in the same degree. We all have different degrees of expertise.

In the same way I think we all have individual thoughts that produce individual choices.

I do not think it robbery to say that every life serves one way or another.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Scientists are working on discovering how life arose. All the evidence indicates it was the product of chemical interactions under specific conditions.

I'm sorry that you haven't understood why your idea that there should be a law for life is mistaken. Maybe someone else can explain in a way you can understand. Good luck!

Oh Dr Jeremy England already covered it. You've lost to science.

First Support for a Physics Theory of Life
Meet the Orthodox Jewish physicist rethinking the origins of life
Origin Of Life: The Panspermia Theory

Information Theory, Evolution, and The Origin of Life
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,131
6,383
29
Wales
✟346,768.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
I thought Dr England was almost certainly on the right track when he first published - the link between entropy, free energy, and the development of complex dissipative structures in non-equilibrium environments has been clear for a long while, but lacking an explicit description of the mechanisms involved - he now needs some clear empirical support for his idea.

But if that's what you mean by a 'law of life', then it's a little more general than that - and still grounded in more fundamental statistical mechanics.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.