OK…I want numbers. What is the probability the universe is the result of chance?

[iluvatar5150]

How can you even start with a universe at all, unless you really meant empty space. Please clarify, then I will continue.

How it started is a separate question. What’s under discussion in the OP are the conditions under which it developed.

 

[atpollard]

Re: Stephen Hawking - What does Hawking say would have happened if the rate of expansion had been greater?

Isn’t the universe expanding at the speed of light, the absolute maximum speed possible?

I admit that I have no idea what else Hawkins said.

 

[Kenny'sID]

How it started is a separate question. What’s under discussion in the OP are the conditions under which it developed.

Right, so it only seem right we should start at the beginning so we get all the conditions.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Isn’t the universe expanding at the speed of light, the absolute maximum speed possible?

I admit that I have no idea what else Hawkins said.

IIRC, No - the outer reaches are receding faster than that. But the light speed cap doesn’t apply here since it’s space itself that is expanding rather than something traveling through space.

ETA - I should clarify that, IIRC, we can't see beyond the part of space receding faster than C. We can't know if that is truly "the edge" of the universe (if such a thing even exists) or if there's some vast expanse beyond it.

 

[Halbhh]

Im gonna quote Oxford University and Nobel prize winner, and mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:
“Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”

“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”

As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”

And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. Deliberate action requires a conscious creator aka God.

Hello, nice question!

There are a few ways to try to offer other perspectives to compare with the one being attributed to Penrose.

Unless you have a degree in the hard sciences (some few of us do, (myself I'll admit) but most would not), this writer also might be of interest, along the same question:

A Universe with too much matter-and-energy for its expansion rate will recollapse in short order; a Universe with too little will expand into oblivion before it's possible to even form atoms. Yet not only has our Universe neither recollapsed nor failed to yield atoms, but even today, some 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang, those two sides of the equation appear to be perfectly in balance.

If we extrapolate this back to a very early time — say, one nanosecond after the hot Big Bang — we find that not only do these two sides have to balance, but they have to balance to an extraordinary precision. The Universe's initial expansion rate and the sum total of all the different forms of matter and energy in the Universe not only need to balance, but they need to balance to more than 20 significant digits. It's like guessing the same 1-to-1,000,000 number as me three times in a row, and then predicting the outcome of 16 consecutive coin-flips immediately afterwards."
The Universe Really Is Fine-Tuned, And Our Existence Is The Proof (forbes.com)

So, there is one figure: probability < 1 in 10^20 (note even 10^-20 is still an astoundingly small order of magnitude)

For another number (link below), we can consider a reason to expect a lower boundary:
probability > ~ 1 in 10^500

(an award winning science writer, at what is probably the top site for physics developments reporting long with sites like Phys.org) --

Complications in Physics Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis | Quanta Magazine

In this article you'd see why 10^-500 is a reasonable number to consider also as a boundary number, but more importantly why we cannot conclude anything one way or the other about the reality that our particular (local!) Universe is definitely "fine tuned" (*) and "unnatural" (*).

(* -- quoting physicists)

In short, no one can prove or disprove God's existing through physics.

If someone could, God would be surprisingly allowing a loophole in the conditions He has set for us to face in our mortal lives: That we must chose whether to trust Him or not -- aka "faith" -- which is to believe before proof.

I cannot achieve a condition of faith that I have a car, since I can simply observe the fact, without any choice to believe.

If proof was available before belief, then that would preclude the chance to have faith, it would obviate faith.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The Perfect Life Condtions of the Earth:
(That is fine tuned for life):




Today there are more than two hundred known parameters required for a planet to support life; For every one of these parameters must be met exactly, or there would be no life on Earth

Here are just 20 of them.

1. Earth is at the perfect distance from the sun.
(Too close and we burn up; Too far away and we would freeze).

2. Earth is in a habitable zone of galaxy where there is no radiation and wandering planetoids.

3. Earth's orbit of the sun does not take us too close to the sun.

4. Earth has the right amount of magnetic fields generated from it's core to protect us from harmful rays of the sun.

5. Earth has the right kind of star (i.e. the sun) which gives off the right amount of output that is not too strong (that would burn us up).

6. Earth is spinning at a rate that makes life possible.

7. Earth is tilted at the right axis for life.

8. Earth's moon as at the right size and distance so as to provide the perfect kind of tides for life.

9. Earth's two gas giants (i.e. Jupiter and Saturn) prevent wandering astroids from hitting the Earth.

10. Earth has the right amount of oxygen or air for life to thrive.

11. Earth has the right kind of gravity for life to thrive.

12. Earth has enough useable water so as to sustain life.

13. Earth has enough minerals, plant, and animal life so as to provide for humans.

14. Earth's atmosphere is at just the right level to protect life.

15. Earth's tectonic processes which recycle the crust are just right so as to maintain life on our planet by recycling minerals and nutrients that we need.

16. Earth's right amount of gases in the atmosphere making life suitable.

17. Earth has the right amount of carbon dioxide.

18. Earth is just the right size.

19. Earth has right amount of Nitogen that makes life possible.

20. Earth is at the right age to support life.​

Taking all these factors into account, it seem like a miracle that we are even here at all. For if even one of the above variables did not exist, then we would not exist. This is just one of the reasons why there is a Creator God who made everything you see.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Christians who believe in Theistic Evolution are just not reading and believing Genesis 1. Those Christians who believe in a flat Earth are ignoring observable Science and reading the Bible with wooden literalism.

 

[The Barbarian]

As C.S. Lewis once said, there are actually quite few atheists in the world. Many of those who call themselves atheists are not actually true atheists when carefully questioned.

True. I can see one accepting God on faith, because we can't be absolutely sure from evidence. But how do you declare no God on faith?

Even Richard Dawkins turns out to be an agnostic.

 

[The Barbarian]

1. Earth is at the perfect distance from the sun.
(Too close and we burn up; Too far away and we would freeze).

The distance differs by over a million miles at different times of the year. So that's a lot of leeway.

2. Earth is in a habitable zone of galaxy where there is no radiation and wandering planetoids.

Except, every now and then, it gets whacked by a huge one, killing off most of the life on it. Unless the "designer" is the Joker, I don't think that's a good one.

3. Earth's orbit of the sun does not take us too close to the sun.

That's no. 1, again.

4. Earth has the right amount of magnetic fields generated from it's core to protect us from harmful rays of the sun.

That's an interesting notion. Mars, for example, looks like early on, it was a very good place for life. But lacking a sufficiently large and hot core, it lacks magnetic generation for plate tectonics (not to mention gravity to hold gases).

5. Earth has the right kind of star (i.e. the sun) which gives off the right amount of output that is not too strong (that would burn us up).

The Sun is a main sequence star. A very common kind in the universe.

6. Earth is spinning at a rate that makes life possible.

It spun a lot faster in the past. Life seemed to do fine.

7. Earth is tilted at the right axis for life.

It actually presents a problem for life. Seasons mean an additional challenge to survival.

8. Earth's moon as at the right size and distance so as to provide the perfect kind of tides for life.

There are no measurable tides on the lake near my house. Life seems to do just fine without them.

9. Earth's two gas giants (i.e. Jupiter and Saturn) prevent wandering astroids from hitting the Earth.

Except the don't work so well; we get hit anyway.

10. Earth has the right amount of oxygen or air for life to thrive.

Actually, life produced oxygen, which was originally a deadly poison for living things at the time. The Banded Iron formations show how that came about.

11. Earth has the right kind of gravity for life to thrive.

Show us your numbers for the wrong kind of gravity.

12. Earth has enough useable water so as to sustain life.

Water is more than necessary for sustaining life. It's essential to forming life in any kind we'd recognize as living.

13. Earth has enough minerals, plant, and animal life so as to provide for humans.

It has life so life can exist here. Right.

14. Earth's atmosphere is at just the right level to protect life.

It was significantly different in the past, and life went on.

15. Earth's tectonic processes which recycle the crust are just right so as to maintain life on our planet by recycling minerals and nutrients that we need.

This is actually very important. It's likely one of the reasons Mars seems to have no life.

16. Earth's right amount of gases in the atmosphere making life suitable.

That's 10 and 14.

17. Earth has the right amount of carbon dioxide.

So's that.

18. Earth is just the right size.

In the right range, anyway.

19. Earth has right amount of Nitogen that makes life possible.

That's 16.

20. Earth is at the right age to support life.

It seemed to do fine when it was much, much younger. Probably will, until it's much, much older.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The distance differs by over a million miles at different times of the year. So that's a lot of leeway.



Except, every now and then, it gets whacked by a huge one, killing off most of the life on it. Unless the "designer" is the Joker, I don't think that's a good one.



That's no. 1, again.



That's an interesting notion. Mars, for example, looks like early on, it was a very good place for life. But lacking a sufficiently large and hot core, it lacks magnetic generation for plate tectonics (not to mention gravity to hold gases).



The Sun is a main sequence star. A very common kind in the universe.



It spun a lot faster in the past. Life seemed to do fine.



It actually presents a problem for life. Seasons mean an additional challenge to survival.



There are no measurable tides on the lake near my house. Life seems to do just fine without them.



Except the don't work so well; we get hit anyway.



Actually, life produced oxygen, which was originally a deadly poison for living things at the time. The Banded Iron formations show how that came about.



Show us your numbers for the wrong kind of gravity.



Water is more than necessary for sustaining life. It's essential to forming life in any kind we'd recognize as living.



It has life so life can exist here. Right.



It was significantly different in the past, and life went on.



This is actually very important. It's likely one of the reasons Mars seems to have no life.



That's 10 and 14.



So's that.



In the right range, anyway.



That's 16.



It seemed to do fine when it was much, much younger. Probably will, until it's much, much older.

No need to thank me. I discovered such truths by a simply searching.

 

[The Barbarian]

No need to thank me. I discovered such truths by a simply searching.

"It has to be true; I found it on the internet." Well, maybe not.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

"It has to be true; I found it on the internet." Well, maybe not.

And where did you learn what you did?

 

[Halbhh]

The Sun is a main sequence star. A very common kind in the universe.

@Bible Highlighter

Y'all might like this.

Astronomy has been a lifelong interest, and so I've read plenty of new research on our sun over the years (hundreds of articles probably).

Its been discovered recently our sun is more unusual in its stability than expected.

Unlike similar seeming stars.

Our Sun behaves *unlike* stars of about same mass/composition

 

[Mark Quayle]

Im gonna quote Oxford University and Nobel prize winner, and mathematical physicist Roger Penrose:
“Try to imagine phase space… of the entire universe. Each point in this phase space represents a different possible way that the universe might have started off. We are to picture the Creator, armed with a ‘pin’ — which is to be placed at some point in phase space… Each different positioning of the pin provides a different universe. Now the accuracy that is needed for the Creator’s aim depends on the entropy of the universe that is thereby created. It would be relatively ‘easy’ to produce a high entropy universe, since then there would be a large volume of the phase space available for the pin to hit. But in order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy — so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics — the Creator must aim for a much tinier volume of the phase space. How tiny would this region be, in order that a universe closely resembling the one in which we actually live would be the result?”

“His calculations lead him to the remarkable conclusion that the ‘Creator’s aim’ must have been accurate to 1 part in 10 to the power of 10 to the power or 123, that is 1 followed by 10 to the 123rd power zeros.”

As Penrose puts it, that is a “number which it would be impossible to write out in the usual decimal way, because even if you were able to put a zero on every particle in the universe, there would not even be enough particles to do the job.”

And the only alternative to the universe arising from chance is for it to have arisen deliberately. Deliberate action requires a conscious creator aka God.

What does he do with the notion that it didn't arise, but has 'always' been, similar to the idea of God being self-existent?

 

[The Barbarian]

Its been discovered recently our sun is more unusual in its stability than expected.

Unlike similar seeming stars.

Its been discovered recently our sun is more unusual in its stability than expected.

Unlike similar seeming stars.

According to your guy about 1/7 of main sequence stars have more activity than our sun. That seems to be the unusual part. 6/7s of them don't show evidence of being more active.

 

[The Barbarian]

And where did you learn what you did?

The scientific literature. It's easy to find, and it's not just some blogger with a story to tell. You see, research requires actual data.

Feel free to check it out for yourself. It's all correct.

 

[Halbhh]

According to your guy about 1/7 of main sequence stars have more activity than our sun. That seems to be the unusual part. 6/7s of them don't show evidence of being more active.

What I was intending to point to is research that is not just about 'main sequence' stars. The articles I meant to link about are about stars with the close to same mass and similar composition to our own sun (similar metallicity). A far smaller groups of stars like our sun, specifically. Similar rotational speed, etc.

 

[Halbhh]

According to your guy about 1/7 of main sequence stars have more activity than our sun. That seems to be the unusual part. 6/7s of them don't show evidence of being more active.

Note that most stars are not as stable as our sun (they flare more for instance), but I'll just transcribe the post, to aid conveying the finding:

Our own star, the Sun, appears to be an unusual acting star for a long while now, unlike others of about the same mass and composition.

It's not been doing what similar stars generally do.

https://phys.org/news/2020-04-sun-similar-stars.html

"By cosmic standards the sun is extraordinarily monotonous. This is the result of a study presented by researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in the upcoming issue of Science. For the first time, the scientists compared the sun with hundreds of other stars with similar rotation periods. Most displayed much stronger variations. ...

[But not our sun]...over the past 9000 years. For this period of time, scientists find regularly recurring fluctuations of comparable strength as during recent decades. "However, compared to the entire lifespan of the Sun, 9000 years is like the blink of an eye," says MPS scientist Dr. Timo Reinhold, first author of the new study. After all, our star is almost 4.6 billion years old. "It is conceivable that the Sun has been going through a quiet phase for thousands of years and that we therefore have a distorted picture of our star," he adds."

Our sun is a weirdly 'quiet' star — and that's lucky for all of us | Space

"The astronomers narrowed down a collection of tens of thousands of stars by focusing on those with about the same surface temperature, surface gravity, age and metallicity as our sun. Then, they split these stars into two batches: one containing 369 stars that rotate every 20 to 30 days and one with 2,529 stars that scientists haven't been able to calculate a rotation period for. (The sun rotates every 24.5 days, but that spin likely wouldn't be detectable to alien astrophysicists using the same techniques humans have, so both of these groups of stars are important.)

"The researchers then analyzed both these groups of stars to understand their activity levels and how they compare with the sun. Stars with known rotation rates were on average much more active than our sun has been over the past 9,000 years — about five times more active.

Think on that for a minute. Our Sun behaves oddly unlike similar stars...and in a way that is very much to our advantage as modern humans.

Life on Earth can tolerate plenty of radiation induced mutations and evolution, but we as a species that already exists don't want a lot of mutations. (Most radiation induced mutations are of course harmful, but some non-cancerous instances that affect reproductive germ cells can create lasting new mutations)....

So, it doesn't seem it is life on Earth that needs our Sun to be acting so uniquely unlike other similar stars. .... No.

It doesn't seem anthropomorphic, in other words. It's not the inevitable correspondence it seems, where you'd need only this kind of star for us to be able to show up in the tree of life at some point naturally.... That's not this situation.

Rather, you'd need this kind of star (or......rather, this kind of unusual behavior, to be more exact.....) for us to flourish after we show up -- as we have.

 

[Halbhh]

According to your guy about 1/7 of main sequence stars have more activity than our sun. That seems to be the unusual part. 6/7s of them don't show evidence of being more active.

Here's the one sentence nutshell version if you prefer it:

"We were very surprised that most of the sun-like stars are so much more active than the sun," Alexander Shapiro, a physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany and a co-author on the new research, said in a statement."

By "active" they mean things like flares and coronal mass ejections, which are both dangers to planets, in terms of being well suited for lengthy stable (gradual and beneficial) conditions for life to flourish. If flares are too many and too strong, and CMEs the same, then it can endanger the atmospheres, water retention, etc. of even planets with lasting magnetic fields. It should not surprise to hear that Earth has a good magnetic field that protects us and our star is unusually well suited for lengthy favorable conditions for life. But that's only the start of the favorable conditions in our system.

 

[The Barbarian]

From your link:

Then, they split these stars into two batches: one containing 369 stars that rotate every 20 to 30 days and one with 2,529 stars that scientists haven't been able to calculate a rotation period for. (The sun rotates every 24.5 days, but that spin likely wouldn't be detectable to alien astrophysicists using the same techniques humans have, so both of these groups of stars are important.)

"The researchers then analyzed both these groups of stars to understand their activity levels and how they compare with the sun. Stars with known rotation rates were on average much more active than our sun has been over the past 9,000 years — about five times more active.

About 1/7th of them more active than our sun.