Bill Nye Talks Extraterrestrial Life: 'It's Gotta Exist'

originally posted by: Legman
a reply to: neoholographic

The fallacys of that fine tuning video are a few but the largest one is that they kept saying "If this value was just slightly different, none of us would exist". Well it is absurd to assume that no life at all would exist with slightly altered constants.

This is it.

The weak anthropic principle has its critics, but it explains it in much the same way you do.

Whatever the values of the constants, either something will arise that can measure them, or something that can measure them will never arise.

They are what we measure them to be because if they weren't, we wouldn't be measuring them.

No multiverse required.

The vid lays out a false dichotomy. Typical for Creationists.

Harte

a reply to: Legman

You said:

Until someone can prove that permutations of constants will not create permutations of life then this is a horrible logically inept argument made up on assumptions.

This makes NO SENSE!!

Why should anyone have to prove that other permutations of the constants CAN'T create life when there's not a SHRED OF EVIDENCE that other permutations has created any life? WHAT???

That's like asking people to prove black holes can't release Hawking Radiation when HR hasn't been observed yet.

How does this other universes with different constants form? How do the values in these other universes give rise to these constants naturally? Where is one of these universes located so I can see it?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Life has been on the earth for 4 billion years, that is almost 1/3 of the universe's life span, and a bit more than just 'perspective', it is factual.

Additionally, all of the ecosystems present during the earth's entire life span have lead to only one sentient species.

The majority of species on earth are sentient, hence the purpose of animal rights.

You are showing a serious misunderstanding of evolution. Sentient life is not the 'goal' of evolution, propagation is. Evolution is not a flow chart or road map to sentience, it is a process that reacts to its environment and has no ultimate goal.

You've kind of contradicted yourself here, by acknowledging evolution seems to have a "goal" of propagation, then claiming it has no "ultimate goal".

For all we know, evolution may have an ultimate goal that hasn't even been achieved on earth yet, since it's not like we're some finished product. Or it may all be random chemistry.

Sentient intelligence was obviously not a very desirable or necessary trait otherwise it would have occurred sometime over the course of the intervening 4 billion years. It had numerous opportunities but instead we had, among other species, 300 million years of dinosaurs and 60 million years of mammals before we see any type of move towards sentience.

Yes and the dinosaurs became extinct eventually and now large brained mammals rule the world. All that really proves is that evolution is obviously a process and not an intelligent entity with foresight. It doesn't mean that intelligent life isn't an inevitable outcome (or "ultimate goal") given enough time.

Either way, we will never really know for sure until we observe life that has thrived on another planet for as long as we have. It's actually kind of ignorant to be arguing the 'facts' of something we will never know for sure within our lifetime. Unless ET comes to us first, obviously.

Having said that, I personally think it's egotistical to assume we are somehow special or unique in the universe.

a reply to: Harte

GOD, I thought I was going crazy or just stupid after reading all of this. Im glad someone understands what Im trying to say.


The fallacy is basic greek logic. Its amazing anyone even subscribes to this crap. I don't pretend to be a genius but I understand logic and science to a degree.


Krazyshot helped keep me sane too. I think I'm retiring from this thread.



Cheers.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
The majority of species on earth are sentient, hence the purpose of animal rights.

Excuse me, when I refer to sentience I am referring to human beings and their much more advanced intelligence, ability to reason abstractly, wide array of emotions, complex language and self-awareness. No other species on the planet even comes remotely close.

You've kind of contradicted yourself here, by acknowledging evolution seems to have a "goal" of propagation, then claiming it has no "ultimate goal".

It is not a contradiction as it is not an end point type goal. Propagation is the continuation of the evolutionary process, sentient intelligence is not. Evolution worked quite well for billions of years without intelligence and would work perfectly well without it.

For all we know, evolution may have an ultimate goal that hasn't even been achieved on earth yet, since it's not like we're some finished product. Or it may all be random chemistry.

Again, you do not understand the evolutionary process if you think it has an ultimate goal. To posit such means that at some point evolution halts which is not the case.

Yes and the dinosaurs became extinct eventually and now large brained mammals rule the world. All that really proves is that evolution is obviously a process and not an intelligent entity with foresight. It doesn't mean that intelligent life isn't an inevitable outcome (or "ultimate goal") given enough time.

It most certainly does otherwise in the course of 300 million years of dinosaur evolution they would have developed large brains and sentient intelligence. Humanity is a fluke of the evolutionary process, large brains like ours are highly inefficient in the evolutionary process.

Either way, we will never really know for sure until we observe life that has thrived on another planet for as long as we have. It's actually kind of ignorant to be arguing the 'facts' of something we will never know for sure within our lifetime. Unless ET comes to us first, obviously.

The facts I mentioned (time scale/evolutionary process) only appear ignorant to those who either do not or refuse to understand them.

Having said that, I personally think it's egotistical to assume we are somehow special or unique in the universe.

Do not put words in my mouth, I never said we were unique. The parameters of an infinite universe/multiverse mean that intelligent life can/should arise, I just think it is ultra-rare based on it not being a necessity of evolution or its end point.

originally posted by: neoholographic
I already showed you.

No you didn't. You just made a bunch of assertions and backed them up with flimsy reasoning. You haven't posted a SINGLE scientific experiment in this thread that can be used to prove a creator.

The universe is fine-tuned for life to exist. There wouldn't even be a debate if it wasn't. The reason there's a debate at all is because the universe seems unnatural and science can't explain things like the vacuum catastrophe or the axis of evil in Cosmology.

This is odd reasoning...

Sean Carroll points this out in this paper and I believe he's an atheist or agnostic:

In What Sense Is the Early Universe Fine-Tuned?

It is commonplace in discussions of modern cosmology to assert that the early universe began in a special state. Conventionally, cosmologists characterize this fine-tuning in terms of the horizon and flatness problems. I argue that the fine-tuning is real, but these problems aren't the best way to think about it: causal disconnection of separated regions isn't the real problem, and flatness isn't a problem at all. Fine-tuning is better understood in terms of a measure on the space of trajectories: given reasonable conditions in the late universe, the fraction of cosmological histories that were smooth at early times is incredibly tiny. This discussion helps clarify what is required by a complete theory of cosmological initial conditions.

Here's more from the paper.

The issue of the initial conditions of the universe – in particular, the degree to which they are “unnatural” or “fine-tuned,” and possible explanations thereof – is obviously of central importance to cosmology, as well as to the foundations of statistical mechanics. The early universe was a hot, dense, rapidly-expanding plasma, spatially flat and nearly homogeneous along appropriately chosen spacelike surfaces.1 The question is, why was it like that? In particular, the thinking goes, these conditions don’t seem to be what we would expect a “randomly chosen” universe to look like, to the extent that such a concept makes any sense. In addition to the obvious challenge to physics and cosmology of developing a theory of initial conditions under which these properties might seem natural, it is a useful exercise to specify as carefully as possible the sense in which they don’t seem natural from our current point of view.

Carroll suggest science can't explain these things.

Of course, all of this discussion about fine-tuning and the cosmological measure would be completely pointless if we did have a well-formulated theory of initial conditions (or, better, of our cosmological history considered as a whole). Ultimately the goal is not to explain why our universe appears unnatural; it’s to explain why we live in this specific universe. Making its apparent unnaturalness precise is hopefully a step toward achieving this lofty ambition.

arxiv.org...

That paper isn't proving anything. It is just him speculating on why the universe is the way it is.

Of course, all of this discussion about fine-tuning and the cosmological measure would becompletely pointless if we did have a well-formulated theory of initial conditions (or, better,of our cosmological history considered as a whole). Ultimately the goal is not to explain whyour universe appears unnatural; it’s to explain why we live in this specific universe. Makingits apparent unnaturalness precise is hopefully a step toward achieving this lofty ambition

In What Sense was the Universe Fine Tuned?

Herein lies the BIG PROBLEM IN SCIENCE. The universe looks UNNATURAL where they expect to find naturalness. Like Carroll said, science can't explain why these things are unnatural or "appears" unnatural. We should just throw out reason and logic and say even though we're not finding naturalness but fine tuning we shouldn't bother with explanations of this UNNATURALNESS , we should just explain it away.

Like I said, the universe is fine-tuned for life and naturalness can't be found. That's because the universe was designed. Here's more from Leonard Susskind talking about the fine-tuned universe.

So your SILLY imaginary tree branches make no sense in light of scientific understanding. I also think Susskind is an atheist. At the end of the day it's SCIENCE.

You clearly aren't understanding what these scientists are saying. None of them have proved fine tuning. They are just speculating on things, and they CERTAINLY haven't proved that the universe is fine tuned for life.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The parameters of an infinite universe/multiverse mean that intelligent life can/should arise, I just think it is ultra-rare based on it not being a necessity of evolution or its end point.

But there's no logical way (with our current technology) that you can establish the parameters of how 'rare' the chances of intelligent life forming is, without being able to observe life on planets outside of our solar system.

All we can really establish as a fact at the current point in time, is that it defiantly occurred on the planet we call earth. So why would it be some how logical to automatically assume intelligent life is rare in other solar systems?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
But there's no logical way (with our current technology) that you can establish the parameters of how 'rare' the chances of intelligent life forming is, without being able to observe life on planets outside of our solar system.

All we can really establish as a fact at the current point in time, is that it defiantly occurred on the planet we call earth. So why would it be some how logical to automatically assume intelligent life is rare in other solar systems?

Intelligent life arose once in 4 billion years here. How common do you think it is?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
But there's no logical way (with our current technology) that you can establish the parameters of how 'rare' the chances of intelligent life forming is, without being able to observe life on planets outside of our solar system.

All we can really establish as a fact at the current point in time, is that it defiantly occurred on the planet we call earth. So why would it be some how logical to automatically assume intelligent life is rare in other solar systems?

Intelligent life arose once in 4 billion years here. How common do you think it is?

I seriously have no idea how common it is dude. But speculation is just that............ speculation!

Like I said in a earlier post, its all a Schrödinger's cat theory. With our current understanding of what is, anything is both possible and impossible.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

Like I said in a earlier post, its all a Schrödinger's cat theory. With our current understanding of what is, anything is both possible and impossible.

I did not ask if it was probable or improbable, I asked if it were common. Those are wholly different circumstances.

Based on the evidence it is probable, just not common (or required).

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well considering we only have one single source of evidence, where intelligent life did eventually occur. How can we logically 'assume' anything else, except that intelligent life is an inevitable outcome, given enough time?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
...intelligent life is an inevitable outcome, given enough time?

How is intelligence and 'inevitable outcome'? If an extinction level event would not have eliminated the dinosaurs they would have still been here and there would not have been the opportunity for mammals to even have a chance at intelligence.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
...intelligent life is an inevitable outcome, given enough time?

How is intelligence and 'inevitable outcome'? If an extinction level event would not have eliminated the dinosaurs they would have still been here and there would not have been the opportunity for mammals to even have a chance at intelligence.

lol, but the fact is, there was an extinction event that eliminated the dinosaurs and allowed the evolution of large brained mammals.

Like I have stated from the start, whether it was inevitable or not, is just a matter of perspective and can't be proved one way or the other, without the ability to observe life forms on other planets.

Peace, lol.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
lol, but the fact is, there was an extinction event that eliminated the dinosaurs and allowed the evolution of large brained mammals.

No, it allowed the evolution of mammals, large brained mammals did not show up until much later.

Like I have stated from the start, whether it was inevitable or not, is just a matter of perspective and can't be proved one way or the other, without the ability to observe life forms on other planets.

And how many others do you need to observe before you can estimate the frequency of intelligent life? There are seven other planets in our system with none and no evidence they ever had any.

It could be argued that sharks and crocodiles are more evolutionarily advanced than humans. They are more likely and more well-equipped to be able to pass on their genetic material to the next generation, and for many generations to come -- which is arguably the definition of "biologically successful".

Heck, some cockroaches (as a species) are more biologically successful than humans as a species.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The problem here I suppose is what we consider to be the objective, or goal if you like, of life itself (in a non anthropic way of course).

I imagine (in my own mind) that the main "objective" of life is simply survival and reproduction. Based on how life tenaciously clings to the most meagre environments and harshest of conditions, it seems to be plausible.

Viruses, bacteria and simple organisms have proven to be very successful at this.

And then we have what we define as intelligence. intelligence is what we, as an intelligent species, believe to be the ultimate objective of life, after all, not many rocks on mastermind, not many trees make computers.

That really is the elephant in the room isn't it, because the fact that we have this intelligence allows us to think about this dichotomy. So are we, by our very nature, condemned to try to supersede nature, is THAT nature's ultimate "objective"?

The evolution from total reliance on the physical to the ability to negate nature's limiting stranglehold on intelligent/our life.

Is nature an entity that actually has a plan or is it simply an absolutely extraordinary quirk of fate that allows us to reflect on the very nature of nature?

It is just a bloody enigma that I believe we will never know the answer to, a bit like what is outside the universe, being a part of it excludes our objectivity. It simply isn't allowed.

Just an opinion

In a universe "fine tuned for life", I find it odd that 99.9999999% of the universe will kill you immediately. In fact we only know of one place in the entire universe that can support life. And even within the thin biosphere of the earth, many places are hostile to life.

a reply to: Tearman

I read somewhere that something like 99 percent of all life that had ever existed on the planet had become extinct, something like that anyway.

That doesn't really hit home till you look around at the life that IS existent on this planet, then add it to the number of species that have existed previously, then the number really hits home to me.

Well, I personally dislike ANYONE who claims global warming is "settled science" when no science is ever really settled but I have to agree that with 4200000000000000000000 stars in the universe and each star maybe has 3 - 6 planets it's likely life exists elsewhere.

a reply to: AnonymousRider

Or that to even question it is unpatriotic.

That's long since made the transition from science to quasi-religious political dogma.