|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
 Posted - 01/22/2003 : 19:55:46
|
The universe needed to attain the necessary parameters to support life.
Question 1: Is there an equation that shows the probability of this to occur in mathematical form? I know hindsight is 100%.
The fact that you are alive has probabilities. Your whole family tree had to survive individually to produce you presently. If you take each event that occurred,(family members surviving wars, one coming to America, finding a wife, ect. whatever ....the list would be long), could a mathematical equation show the probability of your existence today?
The probability of winning a lottery could be 1 in 1000000. The probability that you were alive at that time, in that state, walked into a store and bought a ticket is much higher.
Question 2: Could a probability equation be drawn to an individual person. (Looking at all the evidence the probability that person X exists is 1 in ________.)
|
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2003 : 09:23:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fireballn
The universe needed to attain the necessary parameters to support life.
No, the universe has the parameters that allow our form of live to arise and survive.
We have no way of knowing if life as we know it is the only form of life possible, or in existence.
We have no way of knowing that if the universe had completely different form, makeup, and physical laws, that some form of life wouldn't have arisen there also.
Because we don't know these things, any speculation on what the "probability" of life arising is is meaningless, IMHO. |
 |
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2003 : 16:12:50 [Permalink]
|
| An equation does not appear to be forth coming. I just needed to see if I could use one in a project. Just does not seem to be viable. I did find this:http://www.godhatesfundies.com/articles/probabilities.shtml |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2003 : 16:34:52 [Permalink]
|
This is probably the wrong place to ask since many of us might consider it a waste of time coming up with probablities of a certainty. I would ask at a mathematics forum where they do things like that for fun.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2003 : 16:49:13 [Permalink]
|
| Math forum......worth a try. |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2003 : 16:54:02 [Permalink]
|
| I don't think an equation exists that would answer this question. We know that there are certain fundamental constants governing our universe. We think that if the values of these constants were different, life as we know it could not exist. What we don't (and probably can't) know is whether these constants could have had some other values. It is posible that they could have a range of possible values and just happened to work out in our favor. It is also just as possible that those were the only values they could have. In the first case, the chance of life existing in any random universe (assuming more than one exists) is close to zero. In the second case, it is 1. But without sufficient information, any statistic of this sort will really be just a random guess, no matter what kind of equation it is couched in. |
| Edited by - Espritch on 01/23/2003 16:55:34 |
|
|
|
Infamous
Skeptic Friend
85 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2003 : 07:40:13 [Permalink]
|
The probability that life would arise on an individual planet is almost impossible.
However, in a universe with trillions upon trillions of chances for life to arise, the almost impossible becomes quite probable. |
|
|
|
Legallee Insane
Skeptic Friend
Canada
126 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2003 : 17:09:12 [Permalink]
|
The way I figure the situation is to compare it to pop-up advertising.
Let's just say that each advertisement is a separate planet, and that each time one is displayed on a person's screen that is a chance that life will form. I will change the numbers a little to suit the probability of life rather than the probability of product selling.
Lets say that for every 100 trillion trillion trillion (1 followed by 29 zeros) adds that popped up, 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001% of them were actually clicked on, meaning they have some of the things needed to produce life. Let's say that for the ones that were clicked on (being extremely generous) that 25% of them actually sold something, or in this case had all of the things neccessary to produced life. That would leave us with 0.000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,25% of 100 trillion trillion trillion, which would leave us with 25 planets, out of all of those other planets, that produced life.
Now if we take into account all the variables and probabilities of your life and that of your family tree, then we litterally have a probability that could be considered infinitely small.
Next time you play the lottery you should think to yourself, "Self, I'm alive, so therefore I've already won the greatest lottery possible." |
--"Only the fool says in his heart: There is no god -- The wise says it to the world"
--"I darn you to HECK!" - Catbert
--"Don't worry, we're not laughing at you, we're laughing near you." |
| Edited by - Legallee Insane on 01/24/2003 17:11:28 |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2003 : 18:07:09 [Permalink]
|
A couple of million wouldn't hurt my already improbable life though.
I really don't even need the equation for my project, I just need to know if one is possible. |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2003 : 15:08:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Infamous
The probability that life would arise on an individual planet is almost impossible.
No, not impossible at all. Though it is unlikely for a planet to have the same initial characteristics as Earth did (including its surroundings), any earth-like planet will absolutely sprout life.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2003 : 05:56:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fireballn
An equation does not appear to be forth coming. I just needed to see if I could use one in a project. Just does not seem to be viable. I did find this:http://www.godhatesfundies.com/articles/probabilities.shtml
Does anybody know how to get in touch with the guy, Mike, who wrote that article? I tried to mail him at the link provided in the article, but it's just bouncing due to exceeded mail quota. Are creationists mail-bombing him?
I have some information he might consider interesting for that page. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2003 : 13:13:36 [Permalink]
|
It sounds like everyone is only considering the probabilities for Earth-type life forms. Granted, this is the only type of life we actually know but don't you also have to take into account that there are probably many different ways life could manifest itself which would make life far more probable.
Otherwise you might want to specify that you are looking specifically for Earth-like life and not just anything with the characteristics of life.
But I think it's obvious that any such equation must define first what you mean by "life."
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2003 : 18:01:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by @tomic
It sounds like everyone is only considering the probabilities for Earth-type life forms. Granted, this is the only type of life we actually know but don't you also have to take into account that there are probably many different ways life could manifest itself which would make life far more probable.
I disagree, and here's why:
We need to consider the availability of elements that will be used to create life. If we don't count Hydrogen and Helium, the most common elements in the Universe is Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen (in no specific order, I don't have my books available at the moment). Silicon could replace carbon in molecules, since it's in the same group, but there are several issues...
Quoting http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/C/key.html
While silicon might take the place of carbon in forming a host of related compounds, it is not possible currently to form stable compounds with very long chains of silicon atoms.
The most common two-atomic molecule in the universe is carbon oxide (CO).
Edit: Actually H2 is the most common. CO is the runner up..
The most common three-atomic molecule is water (H2O).
Carbon oxide, and carbon dioxide is gaseous, and can be solved in water. Silicon dioxide is solid up to a temperature well above 1500 Celcius, but I don't know what fluids may solve it. There needs to be some kind of solvant for the minerals and other pre-biotic compounds, that is relativly neutral. Perhaps a chemist could volunteer a liquid that can trade places with water in that respect. Perhaps liquid sulphur would do, but then we would have a temperature problem. Very large "biotic" molecules get unstable in high temperatures. We know that a fever above 42 Celcius is deadly because important proteins get dammaged. Now, we know of bacteria that thrives in temperatures of more than 200 Celcius, but you know what I mean... There's a limit depending on the complexity.
When a planetary system forms, almost all volatile compounds are...
Oh my... I'm starting to lecture here. If I don't stop now, this post will grow indefinatly... Let me know if you want more.
quote:
Otherwise you might want to specify that you are looking specifically for Earth-like life and not just anything with the characteristics of life.
But I think it's obvious that any such equation must define first what you mean by "life."
@tomic
I'll get back to you about a general definition of "life".
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/18/2003 16:51:02 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2003 : 19:50:48 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse wrote:quote:
I disagree, and here's why:
We need to consider the availability of elements that will be used to create life. If we don't count Hydrogen and Helium, the most common elements in the Universe is Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen (in no specific order, I don't have my books available at the moment). Silicon could replace carbon in molecules, since it's in the same group, but there are several issues...
Of course, @tomic didn't specify non-carbon-based life, so a discussion of why silicon isn't likely to be a basis for life is a bit premature, in my opinion.
What about life which "runs" on carbon-based molecules other than DNA and/or RNA? That seems like a better starting point for discussion of the likelihood of non-Earthly sorts of life. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2003 : 21:51:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Dr. Mabuse wrote:quote:
I disagree, and here's why:
We need to consider the availability of elements that will be used to create life. If we don't count Hydrogen and Helium, the most common elements in the Universe is Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen (in no specific order, I don't have my books available at the moment). Silicon could replace carbon in molecules, since it's in the same group, but there are several issues...
Of course, @tomic didn't specify non-carbon-based life, so a discussion of why silicon isn't likely to be a basis for life is a bit premature, in my opinion.
What about life which "runs" on carbon-based molecules other than DNA and/or RNA? That seems like a better starting point for discussion of the likelihood of non-Earthly sorts of life.
Point well taken.
You are right, there might be some other kind of life different from DNA/RNA, however I have no clue how it would look like. Experiments done with molecules that existed on earth (and would be present on other planets with the right conditions to spawn life) all produced the same kind of amino-acids. It would be interesting if someone more proficient in organic chemistry could hypothesize for us... |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
riptor
Skeptic Friend
Germany
70 Posts |
Posted - 02/11/2003 : 02:35:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The most common two-atomic molecule in the universe is carbon oxide (CO).
You sure? I would bet it was molecular oxygen (O2). |
Hail the Big bearded Jellyfish up in heaven above. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
