The Narnia Code

But conditions are right for the existence of elements throughout the universe. Well for as much as we can see of it.

Could they have been any different? If they could have been different, do we know how many tries (how many universes) happened besides this one?

If they hadn't been right for the existence of elements, we wouldn't be here complaining that it wasn't right.
 
What of concepts like geometry. For example, are you saying that a 'structure' interpretated by us as Pythagoras Theorem was created in this way?

No, in fact all I was saying is that calculation of the likelihood of something that has already happened can lead to surprising results.

How on earth is it possible to get things just right to be able to deal a sequence of cards, when the chance of getting [whatever sequence you end up with] is so small?
 
No, in fact all I was saying is that calculation of the likelihood of something that has already happened can lead to surprising results.

How on earth is it possible to get things just right to be able to deal a sequence of cards, when the chance of getting [whatever sequence you end up with] is so small?

This post is an attempt to address both of your previous points.

Concepts like geometry have to exist to even allow the possibility of the creation of elements. Without such concepts the possibility is zero regardless of how many gazillion attempts there are. These concepts are both structured constants and a prerequisite of this 'game' of chance. The concept of incrementation has to exist to allow more than one attempt to take place.

How does such structure, like the pythagoras theroem for example stand outside this process you describe but actually thread right through the results of it?
 
Last edited:
Even if it is, that doesn't matter, because the universe is so very much larger than a pack of cards, and has been around a long time. Out of the whole universe (which, as I mentioned, is big), the right conditions only have to have happened in one instance, for us to be here discussing it.

Then there is there is the possibilty that earth/life simply can't occur by chance. Let's take another view on the card principle. We have a jar with 26 balls made of lead and 26 made of wood. The lead balls are numbered 1 to 26 and the wood balls 27 to 52. If we shake the jar and then pour the balls into a tube a little bigger in diamter than the balls, then numbers won't work because the huge difference in the weight of balls will mean it is no longer purely mathematical and the bottom of the jar (after shaking) will be mainly lead balls.

If the sequence of the balls in the tube to equate to earth/life is for the balls to be alternate in the tube it will never happen.

Think of it this way. If we have water in a saucepan (and atmospheric pressure) and heat the water 50*C and even do it an infinite number of times we will never achieve boiling water.

But if earth/life could form by chance and the universe is infinite then there would have been an infinite number of earth/lifes which would also mean that there were infinite number where advanced life would have existed at the right time for us to have seen evidence.

On the other hand the universe might not be infinte and if so what occurs when you get to the end:D






 
Then there is there is the possibilty that earth/life simply can't occur by chance. Let's take another view on the card principle. We have a jar with 26 balls made of lead and 26 made of wood. The lead balls are numbered 1 to 26 and the wood balls 27 to 52. If we shake the jar and then pour the balls into a tube a little bigger in diamter than the balls, then numbers won't work because the huge difference in the weight of balls will mean it is no longer purely mathematical and the bottom of the jar (after shaking) will be mainly lead balls.

If the sequence of the balls in the tube to equate to earth/life is for the balls to be alternate in the tube it will never happen.

Think of it this way. If we have water in a saucepan (and atmospheric pressure) and heat the water 50*C and even do it an infinite number of times we will never achieve boiling water.

But if earth/life could form by chance and the universe is infinite then there would have been an infinite number of earth/lifes which would also mean that there were infinite number where advanced life would have existed at the right time for us to have seen evidence.

On the other hand the universe might not be infinte and if so what occurs when you get to the end:D






We know that the chemical reactions that support life are possible - they're happening right now, all around us, and inside us.

Is there any reason to suppose that the chemical reactions that support the origin of life are so very different from those that sustain it?
 
This post is an attempt to address both of your previous points.

Concepts like geometry have to exist to even allow the possibility of the creation of elements. Without such concepts the possibility is zero regardless of how many gazillion attempts there are. These concepts are both structured constants and a prerequisite of this 'game' of chance. The concept of incrementation has to exist to allow more than one attempt to take place.

How does such structure, like the pythagoras theroem for example stand outside this process you describe but actually thread right through the results of it?
Are you saying that you think these concepts exist all by themselves, as Platonic ideals?

I don't - they're properties of the universe we live in - in the same sort of way that wetness is one of the properties of water - it's a description of the thing, not a prerequisite, to which it conforms.
 
On the other hand the universe might not be infinte and if so what occurs when you get to the end:D
It's possible for something to be finite and endless - the surface of the earth, for example, is finite in area, but has no edges.
 
On the other hand the universe might not be infinte and if so what occurs when you get to the end:D
The area of the moon is not infinite but let me know where you think the end is.

Rats! Beat me to it Mike Gurman
 
Are you saying that you think these concepts exist all by themselves, as Platonic ideals?

I'm not sure I'm pondering it. :p

I don't - they're properties of the universe we live in - in the same sort of way that wetness is one of the properties of water - it's a description of the thing, not a prerequisite, to which it conforms.

Earlier you said that these properties do not evolve over time. How do they come into existence then? Where did say the set of rules that determines a sphere originate? Did they only spring into existence when an object first evolved into something that could be described as a sphere?
 
Earlier you said that these properties do not evolve over time. How do they come into existence then? Where did say the set of rules that determines a sphere originate? Did they only spring into existence when an object first evolved into something that could be described as a sphere?
There are limits to our knowledge of what happened at the beginning of the universe. Some people have one idea as to what happened; other people have different ideas. The truth is nobody actually knows the actual answer for sure
 
We know that the chemical reactions that support life are possible - they're happening right now, all around us, and inside us.

Is there any reason to suppose that the chemical reactions that support the origin of life are so very different from those that sustain it?

Life starting is one thing but first you have to provide the conditions. Providing the conditions is the big hurdle.
 
Mike and Rabbie,

The Apollo astronauts left the both the earth and moon.
 
Life starting is one thing but first you have to provide the conditions. Providing the conditions is the big hurdle.
It evolved over MILLIONS of years, not in seven days as the book of fairy tales quotes, stop being argumentative
 
Life starting is one thing but first you have to provide the conditions. Providing the conditions is the big hurdle.

Getting the conditions right would be a hurdle if you are trying to do it once - the big, messy universe has provided a whole range of different conditions in different place - and here, they worked.
 
It evolved over MILLIONS of years, not in seven days as the book of fairy tales quotes, stop being argumentative

You are having trouble reading...again.

Whether life evolved in 5 minutes or 5 billion years you first need the earth being the right place for it to both start and then continue long enough to evolve.
 
I'm not sure I'm pondering it. :p



Earlier you said that these properties do not evolve over time. How do they come into existence then? Where did say the set of rules that determines a sphere originate? Did they only spring into existence when an object first evolved into something that could be described as a sphere?

Like I said, I don't believe there is a set of rules that determines a sphere, independently of spheres. Space has properties the same as does matter, but those properties are a description, not a definition that predefines them.

That doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not chemical life could have been provided the right conditions to start.
 
You are having trouble reading...again.

Whether life evolved in 5 minutes or 5 billion years you first need the earth being the right place for it to both start and then continue long enough to evolve.
The Earth just happens to be the right distance from the sun for life to have evolved, there's no doubt that within the depths of the Universe the same condintions don't exist elsewhere, the fact that we haven't found them yet is not sufficient proof that they don't exist
 
The Earth just happens to be the right distance from the sun for life to have evolved, there's no doubt that within the depths of the Universe the same condintions don't exist elsewhere, the fact that we haven't found them yet is not sufficient proof that they don't exist

This was covered a couple of pages ago on the thread.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom