I agree that there is much that we don't know. However, there are some things we do know. It is very important, in any discussion of what is scientifically plausable, to know what we know and what we don't. Some principles are simple enough that we understand them thoroughly. It is not wise to appeal to hope for radically new discoveries in these well-understood areas.
As for an untimate explanation, we are stuck with the problem whether we believe in the supernatural or not. Existance itself needs an explanation.
My hypothesis is that existence is wrapped up in the identity of God. Of course, that idea pushes the concept of the foundation of existance into the realm of the incomprehensible, but I'm afraid that too is inevitable.
Are you familiar with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem? It shows that we cannot possibly (ever, unless we someday find that math and logic are false) come to a full understanding of our universe while we are part of it and able to observe it only from the inside.
It seems, then, that any ultimate explanation for the universe (and any nature that exists beyond it) must appeal to the supernatural or forever be incomplete (or circular reasoning).
It seems to me that proposing that God may exist will not exchange one impossible thing for another. God is a possibility. Science finding the ultimate answers to reality is impossible.
Let me add just one more thing (please forgive me for being so verbose). The space-time theorem of General Relativity demonstrates that all matter, energy, space, and time had a simultaneous origin in the finite past (probably the Big Bang). That's basically the whole universe. Nothing beyond matter, energy, space, and time can be observed or emperically tested in any way. (What I mean is that we can never probe beyond the universe. Something from beyond the universe may probe us or cause observable phenomenon.)
So, we find that we have already hit the limit of physics in terms of ultimate explanations. There are some theories about what caused the Big Bang (the primordial foam theory comes to mind), but they are necessarily untestable and unprovable. As such, they belong to the field of metaphysics, not physics even though they propose laws and theorems which sound familiar to physicists.
I propose that we must look to other sources of information to discover what lies beyond the universe (and we know there is something). For instance, we should look around and see if an agent from beyond the universe has caused any observable phenomenon. We be careful here, and exercise discernment. If God were to produce miracles in a consistant way, we would likely call it a law of physics.
Anyway, that's my 2.
Did I do better with this post? I broke it up into nine paragraphs! Oh brother, I am long winded...:)
PS: I just discovered my problem: HTML format with no -BR- tags. Sorry.
Re:Brief panic, then recovery
on
Rare Earth
·
· Score: 1
Plate tectonics are required for the maintenance of a stable environment. Without both plate tectonics and vulcanism, the carbonate cycle is broken. Water and CO2 would be pulled out of the air, never to return to the atmosphere to keep the surface warm and wet. Mars is a good example of what can happen without plate tectonics. It is cold, dry, and desolate.
There are some "designed" parameters which can easily be chalked up to coincidence, such as the sun's location. Others are a little harder, such as the existance of a metal-rich star already in its most stable (middle-aged) burning cycle (this required a very unusual event involving two very closely-spaced, in time and space, supernovae). Others are even harder, such as the space-energy density term which must fall between exceedingly narrow limits (it can't be different by more than one part in 10^120--Roger Penrose puts it at one part in 10^240) just to have elemental variety and star formation. Still others seem impossible given our current understanding of science. For instance, the conditions for some of life's building blocks to form include boiling temperatures and other such molecules require freezing temperatures. These molecules must form at the same place and at the same time for life to form. Here is another example: Life of the sort we find on Earth requires the presence water. The radiometric elements Thorium and Potasium 40 were present in relative abundance on the primordial Earth. The presence of oxygen inhibits many of the chemical processes required for the formation of life. Here's the rub: Radiation from the above mentioned radioisotopes causes the separation of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. Therefore, scientists are looking for a place on Earth where oxygen is absent but where conditions are not otherwise hostile to life and genesis. Now that undersea vulcanic vents have been ruled out, it seems that the first formation of life skipped a few steps, going from simple amino acids to oxydizing bacteria. This isn't a matter of simply not yet knowing how this could happen. Biochemists understand the relevant processes well enough to rule out such a jump. Strict naturalists are forced to appeal to absurd theories such as panspermia. Again, the appeal to ignorance is ruled out. Recent fossil finds indicate that the first life to form on Earth were organisms very similar to modern blue-green algae (~3.86 billion years ago). No possibility exists for an undiscovered bacterium which can withstand interstellar travel to be the progenetor of all life on Earth. If it was anyting it was blue-green algae which can't make the trip. Here's another example: The sun's luminosity has increased by 30% since the Earth formed. That is enough to put an end to the life that was here long ago. Fortuanetly, many processes (some biological and some geological) colaborated to thin out the green house gasses at exactly the right rate to counter the changing sun. All the while, water vapor is being lost into space as it escapes from the upper atmosphere. A perfectly paced rain of water-bearing comets has been replenishing that lost water.
This list can go on for quit a while. Sometimes, an appeal can be made to the Anthropic Principle (WAP, I think); if mere luck is required, we exist and can see it because we must have gotten exactly that lucky. However, many of the events that lead to a planet like Earth, full of life, defy explaination even if astronomical odds are allowed. We understand the processes, they don't work that way.
Re:Brief panic, then recovery
on
Rare Earth
·
· Score: 1
Even if it is possible for other combinations of planet/star/etc, they would have to be finely tuned to one another. It is quite possible for there to be an infinite number of workable combinations for intelligent life but for that infinity to constitute an effictive zero precent of all possible scenarios. Consider a locus of an infinite number of points which form a one-dimensional curve within a three-dimensional space. The infinitude of points nonetheless occupies exactly zero volume within 3-D space. (Each dimension would represent a term in a Drake-like equation.) I'm assuming, of course, that only random forces may assemble any planetary system. To assume otherwise is to presuppose intelligent design either in the formation process or in the very laws of physics.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I switched to a different background app to donate my spare MIPS. Check them out: Projects: Cancer Home - United Devices, Inc.
Sorry for the lengthy post.
:)
I agree that there is much that we don't know. However, there are some things we do know. It is very important, in any discussion of what is scientifically plausable, to know what we know and what we don't. Some principles are simple enough that we understand them thoroughly. It is not wise to appeal to hope for radically new discoveries in these well-understood areas.
As for an untimate explanation, we are stuck with the problem whether we believe in the supernatural or not. Existance itself needs an explanation.
My hypothesis is that existence is wrapped up in the identity of God. Of course, that idea pushes the concept of the foundation of existance into the realm of the incomprehensible, but I'm afraid that too is inevitable.
Are you familiar with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem? It shows that we cannot possibly (ever, unless we someday find that math and logic are false) come to a full understanding of our universe while we are part of it and able to observe it only from the inside.
It seems, then, that any ultimate explanation for the universe (and any nature that exists beyond it) must appeal to the supernatural or forever be incomplete (or circular reasoning).
It seems to me that proposing that God may exist will not exchange one impossible thing for another. God is a possibility. Science finding the ultimate answers to reality is impossible.
Let me add just one more thing (please forgive me for being so verbose). The space-time theorem of General Relativity demonstrates that all matter, energy, space, and time had a simultaneous origin in the finite past (probably the Big Bang). That's basically the whole universe. Nothing beyond matter, energy, space, and time can be observed or emperically tested in any way. (What I mean is that we can never probe beyond the universe. Something from beyond the universe may probe us or cause observable phenomenon.)
So, we find that we have already hit the limit of physics in terms of ultimate explanations. There are some theories about what caused the Big Bang (the primordial foam theory comes to mind), but they are necessarily untestable and unprovable. As such, they belong to the field of metaphysics, not physics even though they propose laws and theorems which sound familiar to physicists.
I propose that we must look to other sources of information to discover what lies beyond the universe (and we know there is something). For instance, we should look around and see if an agent from beyond the universe has caused any observable phenomenon. We be careful here, and exercise discernment. If God were to produce miracles in a consistant way, we would likely call it a law of physics.
Anyway, that's my 2.
Did I do better with this post? I broke it up into nine paragraphs! Oh brother, I am long winded...
PS: I just discovered my problem: HTML format with no -BR- tags. Sorry.
Plate tectonics are required for the maintenance of a stable environment. Without both plate tectonics and vulcanism, the carbonate cycle is broken. Water and CO2 would be pulled out of the air, never to return to the atmosphere to keep the surface warm and wet. Mars is a good example of what can happen without plate tectonics. It is cold, dry, and desolate.
There are some "designed" parameters which can easily be chalked up to coincidence, such as the sun's location. Others are a little harder, such as the existance of a metal-rich star already in its most stable (middle-aged) burning cycle (this required a very unusual event involving two very closely-spaced, in time and space, supernovae). Others are even harder, such as the space-energy density term which must fall between exceedingly narrow limits (it can't be different by more than one part in 10^120--Roger Penrose puts it at one part in 10^240) just to have elemental variety and star formation. Still others seem impossible given our current understanding of science. For instance, the conditions for some of life's building blocks to form include boiling temperatures and other such molecules require freezing temperatures. These molecules must form at the same place and at the same time for life to form. Here is another example: Life of the sort we find on Earth requires the presence water. The radiometric elements Thorium and Potasium 40 were present in relative abundance on the primordial Earth. The presence of oxygen inhibits many of the chemical processes required for the formation of life. Here's the rub: Radiation from the above mentioned radioisotopes causes the separation of water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. Therefore, scientists are looking for a place on Earth where oxygen is absent but where conditions are not otherwise hostile to life and genesis. Now that undersea vulcanic vents have been ruled out, it seems that the first formation of life skipped a few steps, going from simple amino acids to oxydizing bacteria. This isn't a matter of simply not yet knowing how this could happen. Biochemists understand the relevant processes well enough to rule out such a jump. Strict naturalists are forced to appeal to absurd theories such as panspermia. Again, the appeal to ignorance is ruled out. Recent fossil finds indicate that the first life to form on Earth were organisms very similar to modern blue-green algae (~3.86 billion years ago). No possibility exists for an undiscovered bacterium which can withstand interstellar travel to be the progenetor of all life on Earth. If it was anyting it was blue-green algae which can't make the trip. Here's another example: The sun's luminosity has increased by 30% since the Earth formed. That is enough to put an end to the life that was here long ago. Fortuanetly, many processes (some biological and some geological) colaborated to thin out the green house gasses at exactly the right rate to counter the changing sun. All the while, water vapor is being lost into space as it escapes from the upper atmosphere. A perfectly paced rain of water-bearing comets has been replenishing that lost water. This list can go on for quit a while. Sometimes, an appeal can be made to the Anthropic Principle (WAP, I think); if mere luck is required, we exist and can see it because we must have gotten exactly that lucky. However, many of the events that lead to a planet like Earth, full of life, defy explaination even if astronomical odds are allowed. We understand the processes, they don't work that way.
Even if it is possible for other combinations of planet/star/etc, they would have to be finely tuned to one another. It is quite possible for there to be an infinite number of workable combinations for intelligent life but for that infinity to constitute an effictive zero precent of all possible scenarios. Consider a locus of an infinite number of points which form a one-dimensional curve within a three-dimensional space. The infinitude of points nonetheless occupies exactly zero volume within 3-D space. (Each dimension would represent a term in a Drake-like equation.) I'm assuming, of course, that only random forces may assemble any planetary system. To assume otherwise is to presuppose intelligent design either in the formation process or in the very laws of physics.