How did the Universe come to be?

by **Nervium** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:50 pm

Maybe we're overthinking this. Maybe it didn't come to be.

Maybe it just is, man.

For the love of Zarahustra, don't take this post seriously.

by **The Solar System Scope** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:35 pm

I've a question: what's the Quran?

by **Avenio** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:37 pm

Several hundred pieces of pulped, bleached and pressed wood that have been stamped with an organic dye on both sides and glued to a firm backing material, which is also stamped with organic dye.

by **Voltzenkrad** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:41 pm

I don't know about that question, but i know the answer to these:

Why we are here: PLASTIC. THE EARTH MADE US SO WE COULD MAKE HER PLASTIC

THE MEANING OF LIFE: 42

Why god doesn't exist:

Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED"

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

by **The Solar System Scope** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:41 pm

Oh, you mean the Κοράνιο.

by **Breadknife** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:51 pm

لنكون أكثر دقة، فإنه ينبغي أن يكون على الارجح القرآن

But only if that comes out Ok on your screen...

I 'believe' it because I understand it. Which obviously lets you off the hook.

And, besides, abiogenesis is not evolution. Also evolution is not the Big Bang. In turn The Big Bang is not necessarily "How the Universe came to be" (although would have been a consequence of it, as stellar formation is a consequence of TBB, as planetary formation is a consequence of stellar formation, as then likely as not (I would speculate) begets the process of getting an environment befitting abiogenesis, which in turn gives something for evolution to work on). Once you understand what you're arguing about you can at least hope to ask proper awkward questions (perhaps learn something, perhaps teach us something) rather go on about long-repudiated straw-men that were nevertheless built for a completely different subject...

by **The Solar System Scope** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:10 pm

Why does Earth have life?
1. Distance from center of the galaxy is correct.
2. Distance from the Sun is correct.
3. The Sun has correct properties.
4. Distance from other planets is correct.
5. The Moon has correct properties.
6. Distance from the Moon is correct.
7. Magnetosphere is excellent.
8. Atmosphere is excellent.
9. Almost circular orbit of Earth.
10. Earth has the right size.
11. The tilt of Earth is correct.
12. Rotation period around its axis is correct.
That's just the astronomical aspect. There are many more...
Could it be a coincidence?

by **Mkuki** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:12 pm

Yes. Yes, in the sense that there is no designer.

by **European Socialist Republic** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:14 pm

Yes. The universe is so big that the chance that some planets "coincidentally" have the right conditions for life is pretty big.

by **Liriena** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:29 pm

It is indeed a coincidence. That's what happens when you have about a trillion galaxies: an improbable series of events leads to an outcome that just happens to favour the development of a sapient species of primates.

If you are going to suggest that this makes the Earth a planet that must have been designed by some supreme being... then you have to answer for an awful lot, dear.

by **Shaggai** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:47 pm

Let's assume that the chance of a star in our galaxy having the possibility of forming life is 1 in 1 trillion. There are 100 billion or so stars in our galaxy. That's a 1 in 10 chance per galaxy. There are significantly more galaxies than ten. Yes, it's possible. Really, if you want coincidences, the amount of dark energy in our universe is perfect for life to exist by about 10¹²⁰. That's a small chance. It's still explainable by science, though.

by **Grave_n_idle** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:04 pm

You're right - all of those factors are just right for life.

Well, at least for the kind of life that seems to have adapted to just exactly those factors.

Your story is a puddle looking at the hollow it is in, and proclaiming the existence of PuddleGod, who made hollows the exact right shape for puddles.

by **Mkuki** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:06 pm

This reminded me of Cosmos.

by **Sun Wukong** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:08 pm

Welcome to a universe of big numbers. There are literally millions of planets like ours.

by **Great Nepal** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:20 pm

Yes. Lets ignore the fact that if something changed, then we would have changed thus would still be asking the same question in regards to new situation and just concentrate on pure numbers.
Lets make the assumption that one in a trillion stars are like our sun (this isn't true but I am too lazy to go out and search for exact figure and I am fairly confident that this figure if someone searches up will be significantly more than one in trillion).
20% of sun-like-stars have habitable planets.
International Astronomical Union believes there to be 70 x 10²¹ stars in observable universe alone.

Now, that gives us sun-like star number of 70,000,000,000. Since one 20% have life, that is 14,000,000,000 habitable worlds by highly conservative estimates. Situations in Earth isn't at rare as you think.

by **Mkuki** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:22 pm

Technically, 14 billion would be pretty rare.

by **Frisivisia** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:23 pm

Yes, but could isn't strong enough, I'm going to go with is.

by **Great Nepal** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:28 pm

Okay comparatively, yes.
But my point was we could have evolved in thirteen billion nine hundred ninety nine million nine hundred ninety nine thousand nine hundred and ninety nine other planets instead of this one. Probability of that occurring can be considered close to one without any calculations just by sheer numbers.

by **Breadknife** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:42 pm

Others have said "Yes, it is a complete coincidence." Because you're using the Banana Argument except writ upon a planetary/stellar/galactic scale.

I'd actually say that if our planet was at a different distance from the galactic centre, different distance from our local star, had a different local star, had a differently laid-out set of other planetary orbits, had a different (or no?) moon at a different distance and/or had a differing degree of magnetosphere/atmosphere/orbig/tilt/period (the latter already being dependant on a couple of previous points, so actually being redundant to mention) then we might still exist. For Certain Values Of 'We'.

But instead of talking about 'Goldilocks Zones' being somewhere around 93 Million Miles (or local equivalent units) for the ideal planet to support water in all three states so as not to be all too hot or all too cold for water, but "just right", we might be arguing the same about the (far colder) environment being "just right" to support the liquid hydrocarbon lakes that our completely different body chemistry arose from...

Of course, alternate-us would probably develop the Astronomical Unit. To us, on this Earth, it's that 93 million miles/150 million kilometres, give or take. To the alternate us on the (relatively) frozen planet of the hydrocarbon-seas it would be the 'perfect' distance (whatever it is) that their alternate Earth's planet revolves the star that is the alternate Sun. And the daily cycle need not be 24 (this-)Earth hours long (could be longer or shorter), and the moon may be absent, different, at a different distance or even multiple..!

As long as the planetary system was stable and conducive to (some form of) life it could easily be that we were not the "third rock from the Sun", but perhaps the second, or fourth (or first, or twenty-fifth). Or the fifth moon of the (hot) gas giant that is the second planet out. Or anything. There's nothing actually special about our length of day, our length of year, our distance from the Sun, etc, save that it just happens to be our situation.

Of course, some combinations don't work. Too young a stellar nebula and maybe we don't have enough "heavy" elements to make a significant amount of rocky planets. Too active a star at the heart of a system (and too weak a planet's 'defenses', in the form of atmosphere and magnetosphere, as you mention) and any biology that arises gets broken up before it gets anywhere. Maybe we do need a moon of the size and influence of the actual Moon (for one part, it apparently stabilises the planetary spin, for another it generates tides, which might be a key component to either the early abiogenesis experiments as liquids slosh around and almost certainly was a driver for sea-creatures gaining an ability to survive out of the water, and thus gave us land animals and then eventually ourselves). But, then again, maybe we don't. We have the Moon, so we've developed under its influence (including monthly biological cycles as a hold-over from what was probably an early sea-life spawning mechanism). But we cant actually be sure that it's a necessity.

As already said, there's an awful lot of stars in the galaxy (a number that's difficult to count, but probably 100 to 400 billion stars), and and awful lot of galaxies in the universe (also difficult to count, but it seems maybe 125 billion of these, some much larger than ours, some much smaller). Around all these stars (anything up to a thousand billion billion of them, taking those figures at face value) even a very minor proportion having planets would give... a lot of planets. And I think it's been decided that it's not a very minor proportion. Even discounting all "off-goldilocks" planets (noting that a different Goldilocks might well appreciate a far hotter/colder/saltier/sweeter/sulphurous porridge than ours does, but for now ignoring her, and sticking with our own just because she is far more familier), that still leaves an unimaginably large number of planets. And if even a small fraction of these developed a scientifically enquiring race (might be difficult, given how some of our own race appear not to be interested in the subject, but hey ho...) they'd perhaps be considering their own versions of the Weak and Strong Anthropic Principles. And maybe coming up with the same breadth of answers as our own population has.

Some of them (and some of us) may even be right about it all.

But I still say it's a mistake to assume that Sol-type stars are the only 'Sun's that count and that Terra-type planets are the only 'Earth's that matter and that a Luna-type moon would be necessarily required to be the respective 'Moon' for its inhabitants to occur and question things...

Maybe when we meet some aliens (as we surely will) we can ask them what (if anything) shines down on their planet at night, perhaps hitting their respective optical organs like a big pizza pie (that's amore). I think we'll learn something then. Until then, I'm keeping my mind open to a wide range of possibilities.

And with so many exoplanets being found (and some of them being 'visible' in a way that helps us to get a gist as to their atmospheres), maybe we'll not have to wait until full-on First Contact to get some questions answered (that of basic life, perhaps creating free oxygen against all liklihood if it were up to pure chemical reactions alone, but signs of basic biology at work). But smarter men and women than me are looking at this problem. I consider myself only smart enough (in this particular subject) to maintain enough scientific scepticism to avoid being caught by false-positives through bad science. But if it is bad science then all the other scientists will doubtless pick it up anyway, and if it's a false-false-positive (and, thus, actually positive) then they'll also get around to supporting the original announcement. It's a fun process.

But where was I originally heading with this? Oh yes. Maybe "No, it's not a coincidence", but instead a (reverse) consequence. When we grab the banana we could marvel at how well it fits our hand, not realising that if our hands were far larger that we might be (similarly erroneously) marvelling at how well 'designed' the marrow was, for exactly the same reason.

But, right here and right now, we've got our banana. And I happen to like bananas.

by **Breadknife** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:45 pm

You know, this is what I should have said, instead of writing what I just did. (It's an argument I've actually used before, but for some reason it didn't come to mind.)

Oh well...

by **Furious Grandmothers** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 7:37 pm

Are you intentionally just coming by once in a while to leave random nonsensical posts while conveniently ignoring all the posts made in reply to your previous random nonsensical posts? Tsk tsk.

by **Seriong** » Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:42 pm

Puddle argument:
There's a road, in which a puddle has formed, this sentient puddle thinks to itself "Well, there must be a god, as this puddle is perfectly tuned to my existence!"
We, in fact know that if that puddle's space were different, it would be a differently shaped puddle.
As well, probability argument:
I roll 19 dice (d10s). The string of numbers I then get is: 1928357384592057438
The probability of my getting that string of numbers is so astronomically low, that it must be a miracle of course!
Those two analogies should hopefully show why your reasoning is flawed.
In short: If things were different, things would be different, that doesn't mean that there's a god.

by **The Solar System Scope** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:17 am

Well, why can't we find one then, huh?

by **The Solar System Scope** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:28 am

Take this example:
Would you believe that a clock just got created by itself or evolved from dust particles? When why should you believe that the Universe that's much more accurate and much larger than a clock got created by its own?

by **Divair** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:30 am

Yes. There are approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets in our universe. It is a mathematical inevitability that life would exist on at least some of those planets.

How did the Universe come to be?

How did the Universe come to be?

Who is online