Kevin's Watch

We here a lot about the 'Goldilocks Zone ' and about how, if certain things in the Universe were not as they are, then life as we know it could not exist. We have discussed elsewhere the 'problem' of the universal constants re their settings at just the correct levels (or not so much depending on how you see it), but I wonder, could we just set down those things upon which this contingency is actually based, and see how much of a fluke, or otherwise that life as we know it actually is. I'm reading a book that has suggested that in actual fact, the conditions for our kind of life developing are very rare, very rare indeed, and such an insight threatens(?) to elevate us once more to that 'special place' in the universe that so much of science is directed toward trying to avoid placing us in (that the multiverse theory is given any credence at all has much to do with it's getting us out of the elevated place that the various anthropic principle readings take us to).

I'll kick off then with the unique (?) property of water to solidify at a lower density than it has in it's liquid state. But for this, the seas would have frozen bottom up (so they tell us), and life would have been stifled before it ever got started.

Another thing upon which our type of life has depended has been the modifying effect of the moon on the orbit of the earth around the sun and it's 'wobble' upon its axis of revolution. Without this modifying effect, it is said that the temperature fluctuations would be so large as to make life as we know it (sorry to beat the point, but it's important to keep it in the forefront of this thread, or it looses it's point) impossible.
Now - I've given two examples here of things upon which life are said to be contingent, but in both cases I can imagine cases in the universe where they didn't apply - but our kind of life still got to develop. Say water froze, like other stuff at its lower density point, but on a planet where the temperature range was such that there were areas where it never froze or indeed went beyond the range conducive to balmy lazing about in the sea: or saying a planet had no moon, but all of the other gravitational forces it experienced were such that its orbit (and wobble) were a nice regular ellipse of not too much width etc. Problems solved; contingency dissapeared - or not?

No, what I do like is a list of the stuff that really can't be talked around; if the gravitational constant were not exactly as it is, there would be no planets and stars etc. How much of this stuff is there in reality? How lucky exactly are we, to be here?

Brian Green talks about that almost thirteen minutes into this Ted Talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/brian_greene_on_string_theory
"...almost any fiddling makes the universe disappear." Not just no life, but no much of anything else. Particles would not combine without the nuclear forces being as strong as they are. If gravity was stronger, the moon would've long ago crashed into us, and we would have crashed into the sun. Of course, these things wouldn't have formed in the first place anyway.

But we could guess that, if these properties were different, the elementary particles would be different, too. And those different particles could interact in that different environment in ways that would lead to a universe as amazing as our own. Who knows?

peter wrote: I'll kick off then with the unique (?) property of water to solidify at a lower density than it has in it's liquid state. But for this, the seas would have frozen bottom up (so they tell us), and life would have been stifled before it ever got started.

Fisty wrote:And those different particles could interact in that different environment in ways that would lead to a universe as amazing as our own. Who knows?

That's a very common one, peter, yea. Funny thing though---whenever people mention that they fail to also mention that IF water didn't act that way it wouldn't be water, it wouldn't be this universe. Just amuses me, is all.

And yea, Fist. We live as us in our universe cuz it's the one that is. That in no way means other ones aren't possible. In fact, simulations show that other ones ARE possible, in theory.

I don't think any particular set of constants is necessary---all that's necessary is a set that allows enough stability for there to be enough time, and allows complex assembly. There could be an infinite number of those.

But even in our 'verse, there's a decent chance that things aren't all that fine-tuned. Models have shown that the constants can have a range, not an exact number, and still end up with us being possible. [[preliminary and partial at this point...there isn't enough computing power in the world right now to do a full model]].

And then there's the following---I haven't read it, but keep meaning to get it and read it. The author has a pretty good resume [first link].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Stenger

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/cult ... -life.html

Some serious watching/reading there guys - gratitude. I'll report back.

Vraith wrote:


We live as us in our universe cuz it's the one that is. That in no way means other ones aren't possible. In fact, simulations show that other ones ARE possible, in theory.

I don't think any particular set of constants is necessary---all that's necessary is a set that allows enough stability for there to be enough time, and allows complex assembly. There could be an infinite number of those.

But even in our 'verse, there's a decent chance that things aren't all that fine-tuned. Models have shown that the constants can have a range, not an exact number, and still end up with us being possible. [[preliminary and partial at this point...there isn't enough computing power in the world right now to do a full model]].

And then there's the following---I haven't read it, but keep meaning to get it and read it. The author has a pretty good resume [first link].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Stenger

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/cult ... -life.html

Yes, and why wouldn't there be life like that on earth, on other planets? I don't think life on earth is unique. I appreciate all the variables that need to come together to support life. But that is how life, and a planet that can sustain life, comes about.

I think that .. again apologies to fellow religious Watchers .. it is a human tendency to default to the awe of "creation" and a rationale based on divine intervention that purposed existence. (And feeds into the drive for immortality).

"Surely the earth's optimal position, it's the proximity to the moon affecting it's earths rotation, etc ..... couldn't all be an accident or a coincidence of multitudinous events - it must be by design. And a design must be for a purpose etc. And the design must be by a 'designer' etc"

Why must those be the only other explanation? .. surely with the amount of scientific knowledge and understanding that humans have today isn't there another credible explanation?

Australia is a diverse island, of large interior deserts, huge areas of rock, then we have rain forrest, tropical climates, temperate areas with accompanying vegetation and wildlife in each. The deserts do not support the wide range of wildlife than the rain forests and temperate areas do. Those areas bring all the elements necessary to sustain life. Other areas do not. This is born out in the lack of the same and/or varied species in those areas etc. You get my point.

Probably poorly made
(not a doctor ) (not a scientist - like some of you clearly are)

However, looking at this universe - there are planets that are not capable of sustaining life, yes? .. and then we have the earth, that is capable of sustaining life (for now) and so life exists here, as opposed to elsewhere.

I don't think its a mystery - even to my non-scientific mind .. It really is what it is.

To my mind, there is no great deity hovering who knows where, directing and designing worlds, solar systems, galaxies and universes ad infinitum.

And if there were - why on earth would it have any invested interest in a group of ants that exist on one of these many great worlds, in the many universes designed by it.

I find it unfathomable that that's where minds go .. but tbh my mind went there when I was younger and believed in deities.

Humans need to believe there is more to their existence than living one mortal life. From our earliest days (primitive) humans have looked into the skies and seen clouds above which they've imagined god and all his angels reside.

Until flight - then humans learned .. well theres nothing above the clouds, no god and angels, no heavenly choirs. Then we went to the moon and found .. nope no evidence of gods presence there, no stepping "stone" to the "heavens" .. then we've sent probes further out .. and what have we found? .. no god, no "heaven" no angelic multitudes.

Were not here by accident, nor by design - life exists because all the necessary elements to sustain life were present and life began - and evolved and here we are.

My two cents for what they're worth