Does abiogenesis require a multiverse?

[Sofaman]

This involves some quite technical mathematics.

Let's take an example. How would you go about counting all the real numbers between 0 and 1 without missing any of them out? I will tell you now that you can't do it. The reason you can't do it is because the set of all real numbers between 0 and 1 is an uncountably infinite set.

Of course, you could doubtless devise some scheme for counting some of them, but, even if you had an infinite amount of time available, you would never count all of them. In fact, you would be doomed to miss most of them out. Therefore, the chances of you naming any given real number, chosen at random by somebody else, would be vanishingly small.

The set of all rational numbers is a countably infinite set, so you could count all of them, if you had an infinite amount of time, but you couldn't count all the reals between 0-1, even with an infinite amount of time available to you.

You're wrong. And I can tell you the probability of hitting any specific number randomly if I were given an infinite amount of time. Lets say 4.7658624639754173047463930262538464838.

The probability of hitting that number is
infinite (number of possible outcomes)

divided by

infinite (number of attempts)

Equals

1 or 100%

 

[lesliedellow]

You're wrong. And I can tell you the probability of hitting any specific number randomly if I were given an infinite amount of time. Lets say 4.7658624639754173047463930262538464838.

The probability of hitting that number is
infinite (number of possible outcomes)

divided by

infinite (number of attempts)

Equals

1 or 100%

I am not wrong, and the reason I am not wrong is:

a.) That the arithmetic of finite numbers does not apply to infinite numbers

b.) There are an infinite number of infinite numbers.

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

 

[Sofaman]

I am not wrong, and the reason I am not wrong is:

a.) That the arithmetic of finite numbers does not apply to infinite numbers

b.) There are an infinite number of infinite numbers.

But there are infinite opportunities to select one of those infinite numbers balancing the equation

 

[lesliedellow]

But there are infinite opportunities to select one of those infinite numbers balancing the equation

As I just said, infinity comes in different sizes, and you cannot enumerate a set with more elements than the smallest transfinite number corresponds to. The set of all real numbers has a larger number of elements than that.

When you first encounter this as a maths undergraduate, it takes some time to get your head around it.

 

[lesliedellow]

And given the number of potential planets we are discovering, it is not necessary. Given the current findings, and if you extrapolate the planetary density to just the rest of the galaxy, the chance of a single planet having life appear approaches near certainty. It just happened to happen on this planet.

Big numbers prove nothing. Say, for the sake of argument that there were 10^40 inhabitable planets in the universe. We don't know what the chances of life arising in the first place are, but what if it was one in 10^50?

 

[Paulos23]

Big numbers prove nothing. Say, for the sake of argument that there were 10^40 inhabitable planets in the universe. We don't know what the chances of life arising in the first place are, but what if it was one in 10^50?

Big numbers are important though when it comes to real world statistics. The larger the sample the more it conforms to the statistic (such stats insurance premiums are based off of).

But while we don't know the odds of life happening, you have to admit the more planets we find the closer it gets to 100%.

 

[ChetSinger]

...But while we don't know the odds of life happening, you have to admit the more planets we find the closer it gets to 100%.

Only if the odds-of-life calculation takes into account the number of planets in the universe. The Drake Equation does that, but Koonin's article doesn't.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Actually I would assert that both empirical physicists and empirical biologists tend to get testy when supernaturalism is stuffed into their territory.

No kidding. "God can do it because it is god, you cannot possibly know what it is capable of" always makes me face palm. Especially when so many people attribute certain qualities to the deity they speak of, as if they can possibly know more about its capabilities just because they believe in it

 

[Michael]

No kidding. "God can do it because it is god, you cannot possibly know what it is capable of" always makes me face palm. Especially when so many people attribute certain qualities to the deity they speak of, as if they can possibly know more about its capabilities just because they believe in it

FYI, that's pretty much exactly how I feel about the three invisible (impotent on Earth) amigos of Lambda-CDM.

From my perspective, it is rather amusing to see the inflation faithful pull the same affirming the consequent fallacy claims in biology. It's amusing to see them start stepping on empirical toes in that arena as well. At least Gutheology is now an equal opportunity supernatural offender when it comes to other branches of 'science'.

 

[morningstar2651]

Does abiogenesis require a multiverse?

No.

Creationist Claim CB010: The odds of life forming are incredibly small

Claim: The proteins necessary for life are very complex. The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10^113, and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life. (See also Primitive cells arising by chance.)

Response:

1. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
   
2. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
   
3. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
   
4. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

Links:

• Musgrave, Ian. 1998. Lies, damned lies, statistics, and probability of abiogenesis calculations. Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
• Stockwell, John. 2002. Borel's Law and the origin of many creationist probability assertions. Borel's Law and the Origin of Many Creationist Probability Assertions

References:

• Spotts, Peter N. 2001. Raw materials for life may predate Earth's formation. The Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 30, 2001. http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2001/01/30/fp2s2-csm.shtml

 

[PsychoSarah]

FYI, that's pretty much exactly how I feel about the three invisible (impotent on Earth) amigos of Lambda-CDM.

From my perspective, it is rather amusing to see the inflation faithful pull the same affirming the consequent fallacy claims in biology. It's amusing to see them start stepping on empirical toes in that arena as well. At least Gutheology is now an equal opportunity supernatural offender when it comes to other branches of 'science'.

Must everything become physics with you ?

 

[Michael]

FYI, you might want to check out Boltzmann brain theory. It's entirely possible that intelligent life didn't begin at the microscopic level.

 

[PsychoSarah]

FYI, you might want to check out Boltzmann brain theory. It's entirely possible that intelligent life didn't begin at the microscopic level.

Intelligent life meaning intelligently designed life or life which we would consider to have intelligence?

 

[Michael]

Intelligent life meaning intelligently designed life or life which we would consider to have intelligence?

The latter applies to Boltzmann brain theory, but it applies to the macroscopic level. It doesn't deal with microscopic (planetary) life forms.

 

[lesliedellow]

FYI, you might want to check out Boltzmann brain theory. It's entirely possible that intelligent life didn't begin at the microscopic level.

So having completely revolutionised cosmology, we are now going to perform the same service for biology.

Good oh.

Albert Einstein, eat your heart out.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The latter applies to Boltzmann brain theory, but it applies to the macroscopic level. It doesn't deal with microscopic (planetary) life forms.

Well, why would we expect single celled organisms to be intelligent? It is a rather dated idea.

 

[Michael]

So having completely revolutionised cosmology, we are now going to perform the same service for biology.

Good oh.

Albert Einstein, eat your heart out.

I'm afraid Birkeland and particularly Alfven (the guy with the Nobel Prize in plasma physics) did the revolutionizing in Cosmology, and Boltzmann (and many others) beat me to the intelligent universe concept by more than a hundred years. More like Michael eat your heart out.

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm afraid Birkeland and particularly Alfven (the guy with the Nobel Prize in plasma physics)

A few days ago you weren't impressed by Nobel Prizes. I wonder why you have suddenly rediscovered an admiration for them?

If cosmology has been revolutionised, nobody seems to have noticed. Perhaps they weren't looking.

 

[Michael]

Well, why would we expect single celled organisms to be intelligent? It is a rather dated idea.

Is it?

How Brainless Slime Molds Redefine Intelligence [Video] - Scientific American

 

[Michael]

A few days ago you weren't impressed by Nobel Prizes. I wonder why you have suddenly rediscovered an admiration for them?

I'm afraid the prize alone doesn't dictate how nature actually operates, and someone before me has already been recognized for his work in plasma physics, and has applied these principles to cosmology already.

If cosmology has been revolutionised, nobody seems to have noticed. Perhaps they weren't looking.

I'm afraid that Birkeland was already long dead before the mainstream finally recognized the fact that he revolutionized our understanding of aurora too.

Apparently the mainstream is far too invested in invisible inflation deities to notice *anything* else.