Attention title misnomer: the treat is about the existence of life (and indirectly fine tuning).
There is an argument here that I am trying to understand which claims we we should not wonder that life exists because that is not anything less improbable that that a tornado exists. Judging from the aftermath the existence of anything looks statistically improbable.
(I think the debate has some connection to the other treat "why is there anything instead of nothing" because some people might already wonder why the tornado exists.)
Now I disagree with the idea that life is not anything special that should not be explained further. I think because life is very complex it is as well very unlikely to arrive by chance. In general there has been a move of the universe from less complex states to more complex phenomena over time (although that will propably not continue in the future).
Back to the complexity of life issue:
1. Life has the capability to resist entropy at least within it's own boundaries and for some time. That is not something that seems particular likely if you judge it from the laws of physics. Indeed if a bodyless lifeform that has no clue what material life and would watch it - it would be astonished how all the chemicals inside a body are protected by highly intricate structures form going into chemical equilibrium.
2. Consciousness. Conciousness is a property that shares nothing in common with all the other properties and objects in the universe so one might wonder where that has suddenly sprung from.
Now life is the most complex system there is in the universe so it is as well the most unlikely.
Complex system are not JUST defined by that they have many parts but that that parts produce an interesting meta quality. If you are unsure please use wikipedia to inform yourself about complex systems, it's a whole science.
The (meta)quality of the parts of atoms would be that they allow for chemical reactions between them.
The meta-quality of life is consciousness and the ability to resist entropy.
Now a complex system does not get more complex just because you add a new component. If you for example add an invasive species to an ecosystem
it might - for a moment - have more parts but over the long reason gets less complex and might even fail to give basic meta-functions such as for example cleaning the water.
An atheist here told me that life with cancer is more complex than without cancer and hence according to my theory should need a more urgent explanation. This is a misunderstanding of the term complexity. A life form with cancer is simply a life form failing the battle with entropy, there is nothing that needs a special explanation. The cancer is harming the meta functions of the body so it is reducing the complexity of the overall system in the end. Cancer cells perform already less functions than the healthy cells so they are in themselves less complex.
There is an argument here that I am trying to understand which claims we we should not wonder that life exists because that is not anything less improbable that that a tornado exists. Judging from the aftermath the existence of anything looks statistically improbable.
(I think the debate has some connection to the other treat "why is there anything instead of nothing" because some people might already wonder why the tornado exists.)
Now I disagree with the idea that life is not anything special that should not be explained further. I think because life is very complex it is as well very unlikely to arrive by chance. In general there has been a move of the universe from less complex states to more complex phenomena over time (although that will propably not continue in the future).
Back to the complexity of life issue:
1. Life has the capability to resist entropy at least within it's own boundaries and for some time. That is not something that seems particular likely if you judge it from the laws of physics. Indeed if a bodyless lifeform that has no clue what material life and would watch it - it would be astonished how all the chemicals inside a body are protected by highly intricate structures form going into chemical equilibrium.
2. Consciousness. Conciousness is a property that shares nothing in common with all the other properties and objects in the universe so one might wonder where that has suddenly sprung from.
Now life is the most complex system there is in the universe so it is as well the most unlikely.
Complex system are not JUST defined by that they have many parts but that that parts produce an interesting meta quality. If you are unsure please use wikipedia to inform yourself about complex systems, it's a whole science.
The (meta)quality of the parts of atoms would be that they allow for chemical reactions between them.
The meta-quality of life is consciousness and the ability to resist entropy.
Now a complex system does not get more complex just because you add a new component. If you for example add an invasive species to an ecosystem
it might - for a moment - have more parts but over the long reason gets less complex and might even fail to give basic meta-functions such as for example cleaning the water.
An atheist here told me that life with cancer is more complex than without cancer and hence according to my theory should need a more urgent explanation. This is a misunderstanding of the term complexity. A life form with cancer is simply a life form failing the battle with entropy, there is nothing that needs a special explanation. The cancer is harming the meta functions of the body so it is reducing the complexity of the overall system in the end. Cancer cells perform already less functions than the healthy cells so they are in themselves less complex.
Last edited:
