For life to exist many physical constants must be exactly as they are. It follows then that if the universe is precisely engineered to have life then life also should be precisely engineered to fit into that space. And that there is no waste of life
Some maintain that there are an infinite number of “universes” and therefore the chance that life can exist is not probable but certain. However the logic of multi-universes requires that all possible worlds do exist. And therefore even using this logic there must be somewhere a universe that is completely filled with life. That is, a universe in which all seeds grow and become living beings.
Now consider how far short of this ideal our world falls. How badly life fits into our universe and how much life goes to waste.
The space in the universe for life to exist is exceedingly small compared to the amount of life that "wants" to occupy it. Life could fill the entire universe if allowed to. However instead we see that while our universe is expanding the space for life is becoming smaller. This is the biggest problem
Hi Are you saying that the place for life should have expanded as the universe grew? and that the universe should be full of life? So why isn't it?
Yes in the One Universe model there should be a linkage between the "size" of life and the size of the universe. In the Multi Universe model the question is: why are we living in a universe with very little life and not one that is filled with life?
So? If there is 1 chance in a bigizallion that life can exists, then life took the chance since we are indeed here. Now, if there was ZERO chance for life to exists, then Id say we have a problem but 1 in a terabigizallion - then it just means we got lucky, enjoy life!
Could the universe be full of life? sure, why not. Could the universe have no life at all, sure why not? its all random numbers and chance.
Why do you say the space for life is becoming smaller? The total mass and energy of the universe is always constant. Therefore the total potential for life (by transforming all energy into say... human beings and food) remains constant trough time.
Now, you might say; "yeah but the space in between the points of interest (different planets) gets bigger and bigger making it harder to consume all the ressources of the universe to accomplish this transformation". To that I would answer that it only makes it harder for a single civilization to do it all. We just have to wait until some intelligent life forms evolves on other parts of the universe and, if they dont destroy themselves, will fill the universe with life in their respective regions. In a large universe, natural evolution fills space with life as opposed to colonization by 1 race in a small universe.
Could the universe be full of life? sure, why not. Could the universe have no life at all, sure why not? its all random numbers and chance.
Why do you say the space for life is becoming smaller? The total mass and energy of the universe is always constant. Therefore the total potential for life (by transforming all energy into say... human beings and food) remains constant trough time.
Now, you might say; "yeah but the space in between the points of interest (different planets) gets bigger and bigger making it harder to consume all the ressources of the universe to accomplish this transformation". To that I would answer that it only makes it harder for a single civilization to do it all. We just have to wait until some intelligent life forms evolves on other parts of the universe and, if they dont destroy themselves, will fill the universe with life in their respective regions. In a large universe, natural evolution fills space with life as opposed to colonization by 1 race in a small universe.
The universe is the master set of relationships and balances. Doesn’t it seem odd that the two biggest things ( size and the potential of life to expand) are headed in the opposite directions (universe getting larger, place for life getting smaller)? And that so much life comes part way into existence but never gets beyond the “seed” stage? This I believe indicates that something is wrong.
QUOTE (no1nose+Jul 22 2005, 08:28 PM)
The universe is the master set of relationships and balances. Doesn’t it seem odd that the two biggest things ( size and the potential of life to expand) are headed in the opposite directions (universe getting larger, place for life getting smaller)? And that so much life comes part way into existence but never gets beyond the “seed” stage? This I believe indicates that something is wrong.
State why you believe the place for life is getting smaller.
Read the post above yours
Provide a rebutal.
State why you believe the place for life is getting smaller.
Read the post above yours
Provide a rebutal.
The place for life is getting smaller: Bio diversity is decreasing. I respect your view point but don't agree with it. I don't think anything that I would say would change your mind. I am just giving you something to think about. 
I have been known to change my mind before.
However, I do not see the need to discuss probability of life in a ever expanding multiverse to address the problem of bio diversity which is an earth specific problem and not guaranteed to be to "norm" elsewhere.
However, I do not see the need to discuss probability of life in a ever expanding multiverse to address the problem of bio diversity which is an earth specific problem and not guaranteed to be to "norm" elsewhere.
meh, forgot to log in. above post is from me.
Not really an issue about probability.
It’s more of a question of why things are the way they are. The universe is so precisely set to enable life and at the same time the right size to hold all the life that could be.
But its precision and size does not fit well with the fact that most (99.9999….. %) of life is destroyed at the early stages.
It seems that the universe we live in is not the one that was originally intended be. That somehow at the beginning of its creation something went wrong.
It’s more of a question of why things are the way they are. The universe is so precisely set to enable life and at the same time the right size to hold all the life that could be.
But its precision and size does not fit well with the fact that most (99.9999….. %) of life is destroyed at the early stages.
It seems that the universe we live in is not the one that was originally intended be. That somehow at the beginning of its creation something went wrong.
Interesting thinking. So what went wrong?
Well, I see it this way; if 99.99999% of life gets destroyed in the early stage then it just means that the universe isn't specifically tuned and optimized for life as you say it is. Maybe instead of constant C being 300,000km/s it should be 300,000.0001 and then it would be perfectly tuned. So, what went wrong? I don't even think there is something wrong now.
For example, in this statement alone;
I don't agree, please elaborate.
I don't agree, please elaborate.
and at the same time the right size to hold all the life that could be.
This topic has 12 replys?, and still, no one has any idea what that means.
We are looking at this from "who" did this and "why", which is absolutly understandable, yet we just have no way of putting the evidence we have together to come close to the truth. It looks to me, that if there is a motive behind the creation on the universe, it would be to create variety. Variety ensures possibility; we are a sum of this possibility.
We are looking at this from "who" did this and "why", which is absolutly understandable, yet we just have no way of putting the evidence we have together to come close to the truth. It looks to me, that if there is a motive behind the creation on the universe, it would be to create variety. Variety ensures possibility; we are a sum of this possibility.
It’s more of a question of why things are the way they are. The universe is so precisely set to enable life and at the same time the right size to hold all the life that could be.
But its precision and size does not fit well with the fact that most (99.9999….. %) of life is destroyed at the early stages.
It seems that the universe we live in is not the one that was originally intended be. That somehow at the beginning of its creation something went wrong.
Also, life seems to be on the same line of rules as variety, it must ensure it's goal of creating the correct equilibrium, by creating variety.
For example, in this statement alone;
QUOTE
The universe is so precisely set to enable life
I don't agree, please elaborate.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The universe is so precisely set to enable life |
I don't agree, please elaborate.
and at the same time the right size to hold all the life that could be.
This topic has 12 replys?, and still, no one has any idea what that means.
There are many physical constants such the charge on an electron that must be exactly as they are for life to be possible. It appears that the universe was specifically made for life. Then there the coincidence that the expansion of the universe, which would keep pace with the expansion of life. It is like all the automobile manufactures in the world produced only one complete working car and at the same time produced millions of broken and incomplete cars. Something appears to be wrong.
I get what you are saying - if they can build one complete car why build millions of borken ones? But my question is what went wrong?????
QUOTE (no1nose+Jul 23 2005, 05:17 PM)
There are many physical constants such the charge on an electron that must be exactly as they are for life to be possible. It appears that the universe was specifically made for life. Then there the coincidence that the expansion of the universe, which would keep pace with the expansion of life. It is like all the automobile manufactures in the world produced only one complete working car and at the same time produced millions of broken and incomplete cars. Something appears to be wrong.
I think I finaly understand what you are saying... But, why do you think the others cars are incomplete or inferior? I suggest they all (most) had a purpose. For example, the company learned from their mistakes by building them...
99+% of all species are instincts; most of them are (where) bacterium. When life begun, it is tought that the very first bacteria produced oxygen and released it in the atmosphere, hereby allowing more complex life forms to evolve. Do you really think these bacteria are a failure of life because they are now extinct?
If you argue that the whole totality of the universe is tuned for life in some high inter connected purposefull system of laws and principles, why not use a similar scale to measure the state of life? For example, you might want to consider life as an ongoing evolutionnary process where all species serve a purpose. - As opposed to some trivial counting of the total number species then, because its decreasing, saying ; omg what went wrong
Most species goes extinct but in the process, they allow the superior one to life on and reproduce (for example they go extinct because they were eaten by a stronger predator). This process as you may know is called natural selection and it is the universe's way to extend the boundaries of life .
So, life evolves over layers of extinction, each required for the next level to florish. It is yet another evidence that the universe is very well tuned to life - by allowing the strongest specie to survive over weaker ones.
I think I finaly understand what you are saying... But, why do you think the others cars are incomplete or inferior? I suggest they all (most) had a purpose. For example, the company learned from their mistakes by building them...
99+% of all species are instincts; most of them are (where) bacterium. When life begun, it is tought that the very first bacteria produced oxygen and released it in the atmosphere, hereby allowing more complex life forms to evolve. Do you really think these bacteria are a failure of life because they are now extinct?
If you argue that the whole totality of the universe is tuned for life in some high inter connected purposefull system of laws and principles, why not use a similar scale to measure the state of life? For example, you might want to consider life as an ongoing evolutionnary process where all species serve a purpose. - As opposed to some trivial counting of the total number species then, because its decreasing, saying ; omg what went wrong
Most species goes extinct but in the process, they allow the superior one to life on and reproduce (for example they go extinct because they were eaten by a stronger predator). This process as you may know is called natural selection and it is the universe's way to extend the boundaries of life .
So, life evolves over layers of extinction, each required for the next level to florish. It is yet another evidence that the universe is very well tuned to life - by allowing the strongest specie to survive over weaker ones.
To continue the analogy-the question is why continue to build millions of broken cars? I don’t really think that the idea of evolution fits our ever expanding understanding of things as it once did. The sad experiences of life are themselves a testimony that something is amiss on a cosmic scale.
It is difficult for us to relate "perfection" to the world we know. To see why, picture for a moment a sphere like object – for example a basketball. In three dimensions this is easy. But imagine we lived in only two dimensions and didn't have access to the third. If this were the case then the ball would appear as only a cross sectional circle.
Picture two circles separated on a piece of paper. In two dimensions they look forever separated but in three dimensions they could both be a part of the same thing - a donut shaped object. What seems absolutely impossible in two dimensions is perfectly natural in three.
Are there really more that three dimensions plus time? Many physicists and mathematicians believe that there are as many as eleven, some believe there are even more. Evidence for this can be seen when one considers the force of gravity. For example how is it that the moon and earth can “hold on” to one another? To the layman this may seem a silly question but to those that study such things it is truly baffling – unless like the two circles on a page, the earth and the moon are in some way connected in a higher dimension.
Perhaps the universe was meant to be experienced by living things in all dimensions. This would then answer the question of why there are unseen dimensions of no known purpose in our universe.
It is difficult for us to relate "perfection" to the world we know. To see why, picture for a moment a sphere like object – for example a basketball. In three dimensions this is easy. But imagine we lived in only two dimensions and didn't have access to the third. If this were the case then the ball would appear as only a cross sectional circle.
Picture two circles separated on a piece of paper. In two dimensions they look forever separated but in three dimensions they could both be a part of the same thing - a donut shaped object. What seems absolutely impossible in two dimensions is perfectly natural in three.
Are there really more that three dimensions plus time? Many physicists and mathematicians believe that there are as many as eleven, some believe there are even more. Evidence for this can be seen when one considers the force of gravity. For example how is it that the moon and earth can “hold on” to one another? To the layman this may seem a silly question but to those that study such things it is truly baffling – unless like the two circles on a page, the earth and the moon are in some way connected in a higher dimension.
Perhaps the universe was meant to be experienced by living things in all dimensions. This would then answer the question of why there are unseen dimensions of no known purpose in our universe.
a_ht your image has not worked
QUOTE
The question is why continue to build millions of broken cars?
We are looking at this from "who" did this and "why", which is absolutly understandable, yet we just have no way of putting the evidence we have together to come close to the truth. It looks to me, that if there is a motive behind the creation on the universe, it would be to create variety. Variety ensures possibility; we are a sum of this possibility.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The question is why continue to build millions of broken cars? |
We are looking at this from "who" did this and "why", which is absolutly understandable, yet we just have no way of putting the evidence we have together to come close to the truth. It looks to me, that if there is a motive behind the creation on the universe, it would be to create variety. Variety ensures possibility; we are a sum of this possibility.
It’s more of a question of why things are the way they are. The universe is so precisely set to enable life and at the same time the right size to hold all the life that could be.
But its precision and size does not fit well with the fact that most (99.9999….. %) of life is destroyed at the early stages.
It seems that the universe we live in is not the one that was originally intended be. That somehow at the beginning of its creation something went wrong.
Also, life seems to be on the same line of rules as variety, it must ensure it's goal of creating the correct equilibrium, by creating variety.
I agree with you; to go beyond this is a step of faith regardless of the direction you take.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.