My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
--Albert Einstein
It’s intriguing that the best place to view total solar eclipses in our Solar System is the one time and place where there are observers to see them. It's intriguing to think of the conditions required to make it possible. It's intriguing to think of what we can learn from them. It's intriguing to think that this is only one of many reasons we can call Earth a privileged planet.
We may have frail and feeble minds (relative to the mind of God), but we seem to be getting all the help we need to use them well. On the other hand, as Einstein once said:
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
--Albert Einstein
It’s intriguing that the best place to view total solar eclipses in our Solar System is the one time and place where there are observers to see them. It's intriguing to think of the conditions required to make it possible. It's intriguing to think of what we can learn from them. It's intriguing to think that this is only one of many reasons we can call Earth a privileged planet.
We may have frail and feeble minds (relative to the mind of God), but we seem to be getting all the help we need to use them well. On the other hand, as Einstein once said:
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
It’s intriguing that the best place to view total solar eclipses in our Solar System is the one time and place where there are observers to see them. It turns out that the precise configuration of Earth, Moon and Sun are also vital to sustaining life on Earth. A moon large enough to cover the Sun stabilizes the tilt of the rotation axis of its host planet, yielding a more stable climate, which is necessary for complex life. The Moon also contributes to Earth’s ocean tides, which increase the vital mixing of nutrients from the land to the oceans. The two moons around Mars are much too small to stabilize its rotation axis.The privileged planet
In addition, it’s only in the so-called Circumstellar Habitable Zone of our Sun--that cozy life friendly ring where water can stay liquid on a planet’s surface--that the Sun appears to be about the same size as the Moon from Earth’s surface. As a result, we enjoy perfect solar eclipses.
That alone seems fishy. But here’s the part that suggests conspiracy rather than quirky coincidence. Our ability to observe perfect solar eclipses has figured prominently in several important scientific discoveries, discoveries that would have been difficult if not impossible on the much more common planets that don’t enjoy such eclipses.
First, these observations helped disclose the nature of stars. Scientists since Isaac Newton (1666) had known that sunlight splits into all the colors of the rainbow when passed through a prism. But only in the 19th century did astronomers observe solar eclipses with spectroscopes, which use prisms. The combination of the man-made spectroscope with the natural experiment provided by eclipses gave astronomers the tools they needed not only to discover how the Sun’s spectrum is produced, but the nature of the Sun itself. This knowledge enabled astronomers to interpret the spectra of the distant stars. So, in a sense, perfect eclipses were a key that unlocked the field of astrophysics.
Second, in 1919, perfect solar eclipses allowed two teams of astronomers, one led by Sir Arthur Eddington, to confirm a prediction of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity--that gravity bends light. They succeeded in measuring the changes in the positions of starlight passing near the Sun’s edge compared to their positions months later. Such a test was most feasible during a perfect solar eclipse. The tests led to the general acceptance of Einstein’s theory, which is the foundation of modern cosmology.
And finally, perfect eclipses give us unique access to ancient history. By consulting historical records of past solar eclipses, astronomers can calculate the change in Earth’s rotation over the past several thousand years. This, in turn, allows us to put ancient calendars precisely on our modern calendar system.
These are just three ways in which perfect solar eclipses, produced by conditions that help create a habitable planet, have fostered scientific discovery. But this is only one example of the correlation between habitability and measurability.
At the much larger, galactic, scale, we again find that the most habitable place is also the best overall location for making a diverse range of scientific discoveries.
Of course, a silicon-based life-form in another part of the universe might argue that conditions in it's neighbourhood were suspiciously favourable to it! ;-)
ReplyDeleteOr have I just confirmed Big Al's observation about human stupidity?
ReplyDeleteThe universe seems to be designed (if I can use that word in these parts) for life. It is therefore probable that life in some form exists elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteEven so, what gets interesting is that the conditions required for our existence are so improbable that statistically speaking, we probably do not exist. Maybe in another 15 billion years we might, we'll just have to wait and see.
"The universe seems to be designed (if I can use that word in these parts) for life. It is therefore probable that life in some form exists elsewhere."
ReplyDeleteNo Zen, the Earth seems to be designed for life - because it would be very difficult for life to survive if the earth were slightly closer or further from the sun, or the sun was in a slightly different part of the galaxy etc. This makes life outside earth more improbable, not probable.
God might have chosen to place some life elsewhere too, the Bible does not specifically say He did not. However this is unlikely in my opinion, and there is no scientific reason to think otherwise.
"..this is unlikely in my opinion, and there is no scientific reason to think otherwise."
ReplyDeleteNo scientific reason? There are simply unimaginable numbers of stars and moons and planets in the universe. The odds of another planet very similar indeed to ours existing must surely be very high. And life may very well exist on planets quite different to this one, so to say there's 'no scientific reason' is absurd.
Statistically, there's every possibility of life existing elsewhere.
I find it harder to imagine it doesn't.
Statistically, there's every possibility of life existing elsewhere.There are far too many unknowns to make that statement KG.
ReplyDeleteWe have a sample of exactly just one planet with life and you can't infer much from a sample of one
Some numbers:
ReplyDeleteThere are about 400 billion stars in our galaxy alone. If each of them have the same number of planets (on average) as our own sun, then that's about 4 trillion planets in our own galaxy alone. Multiply that by an estimated 125 billion galaxies in the universe ...
Now, I'm aware that the raw numbers aren't the whole story Andrei, but we may well have a sample of just one planet with life because of the sheer magnitude of the distances involved.
To infer from the fact that we have just one example of a planet with life that life elsewhere is 'unlikely'is to extrapolate the situation in one tiny corner of the universe to cover the whole.
And that, I believe, is absurd.
Yes I know - the Drake equation.
ReplyDeleteBut most of the stars in our galaxy are not on the outskirts as the Sun is but in the center (and condition there might be distinctly unhealthy)
Not too mention some stars burn out quickly (the big boys) and others barely get going at all. Jupiter is for example all a proto-star rather than a planet.
Your numbers come down somewhat.
Without going through that equation term by term the first question becomes how many possible planets are there and the answer is unknowable at this juncture
Then there is the question: given the conditions of the early earth what is the probability of life forming - a totally unknown quantity.
So now you are applying an unknown probability to an unknown number of possible planets.
You cannot provide an answer that has any scientific validity.
We have a sample of exactly just one planet with life and you can't infer much from a sample of oneWhat? Last week I was agreeing with Zen and now Andrei???
ReplyDeleteIt's as speculative to say that there will be lots of life out there as it is to say we have a 'privileged planet'. A quote from William James on a similar topic
"We never know what ends may have been kept from realization, for the dead tell no tales. The surviving witness would in any case, and whatever he were, draw the conclusion that the universe planned to make him, and the like of him succeed, for it actually did so. But your argument that it is millions to one that it didn't do so by chance doesn't apply. It would apply if the witness had pre-existed in an independent form and framed his scheme, and then the world had realized it. Such a coincidence would prove the world to have a kindred mind to his. But there has been no such coincidence. The world has come but once, there witness is there after the fact and simply approves... Where only one fact is in question there is no relation to probability at all"
and of course there is alway Douglas Adams
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."
I've always thought the eclipse thing was cool though.
"You cannot provide an answer that has any scientific validity."
ReplyDeleteQuite. But when we get to the unprovable and the unknowable (thus far) 'scientifc validity' becomes meaningless.
But if I were a betting man (which I'm not) I'd go with the numbers. :-)
ReplyDeleteAnd David, I didn't say 'there will be lots of life out there'.
ReplyDeleteI said I find it hard to imagine that it doesn't exist elsewhere.
As I understand it, most stars don't actually have any or many planets at all. And as Andrei has pointed out, most that do are in unfavourable parts of the galaxy. Whether life could survive elsewhere or not depends entirely on your assumptions, but the more you look into it the more difficult it seems to be for life to survive.
ReplyDeleteThen, even if there was a planet that life could survive on, how likely is it that life would actually exist on it?
If you believe life can spontaneously generate from non-life, as atheistic evolutionists are forced to, this is a very complicated event so the probability of that actually occuring is tiny, even on a suitable planet.
If you believe God alone creates life, what are the chances of Him actually placing life on another planet? We have no way of knowing His mind, so cannot say. However the Bible is clear that the "heavens and the earth" will all be destroyed by fire eventually as a consequence of Adam's sin, so any alien species would also suffer the consequence of Adam's sin. This does not seem just, so I doubt God would have made alien life. But we cannot know for sure.
So in my mind the odds are fairly well stacked against alien life. But the answer is unknowable until a little green man pops up to tell us we're wrong.
"If you believe life can spontaneously generate from non-life, as atheistic evolutionists are forced to, this is a very complicated event so the probability of that actually occuring is tiny, even on a suitable planet."
ReplyDeleteYou've packed a lot of mistakes into this statement.
A. The difference between "life" and "non life" is only a conceptual difference. "Life" simply refers to a more complex interaction of particles that follow the same basic rules of interaction that other matter conform to. Biogenisis is therefore an ongoing transitional state, rather than a singular event.
B. We, "Atheistic evolutionists" are not "forced" to believe anything, I simply think that evolution is the most likely explanation for the ongoing self organisation of matter.
C. Probability becomes irrelevant when dealing with a system possesing an infinite sample range. The law of natural selection leads to the conclusion that the formation of life is a statistical inevitabilty, the random element is the "when", not the "if"
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt
Einstein was a diest, he essentially believed the watchmaker/intellegent design argument. He was not a thiest (and yes I'm aware this was not the point of your post or why you quoted him, but I thought I'd point it out)
"Probability becomes irrelevant when dealing with a system possesing an infinite sample range. The law of natural selection leads to the conclusion that the formation of life is a statistical inevitabilty, the random element is the "when", not the "if""
ReplyDeleteNatural selection is a biological process. It is irrelevant to non-living matter. The origin of life and evolution are two entirely different issues - don't mix them up.
The law of natural selection therefore has no bearing on the organisation of non-living chemicals to form life, which is highly unlikely statistically when you consider the actual processes involved.
Did you read my entire reply? If you did you obviously did not understand it.
ReplyDeleteThe separation of the sciences is conceptual, IE we've defined them this way for pragmatic reasons. Sociology is advanced biology, biology is advanced chemistry, chemistry is advanced physics. The difference between "living" and "non living" matter is also only conceptual in nature. Science is simply the study of cause and effect, regardless of which school of science you're referring to. Biogenenis, IE the "leap" from non-living to living material is an ongoing process of development, rather than a singular event.
Evolution simply describes a statistical model of what happens when you combine random mutation, natural selection (survival of the fittest), and an infinite sample range. It doesn't just apply to biology.
Yes David, I completely understand that the separation of everything is conceptual. Ultimately everything comes back to physics.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in science natural selection ONLY applies to things that are capable of reproducing - ie life.
Put it another way - in a car, everything comes back to nuts and bolts. But the road rules don't apply to nuts and bolts, only to a car.
Biogenesis would be guided purely by those physical and chemical laws that govern chemical reactions. And the reality is that the chemicals that need to be formed in biogenesis (proteins, DNA etc) are complex, unstable molecules that will break down if not already protected in a cell.
The problem for you is that the chemical laws are going in the wrong direction. Give it as much time as you like, on the whole you will still just end up with simpler molecules over time, NOT more complex molecules. That's basic chemistry.
Oh dear, the entropy argument. All it takes is and injection of energy to throw that argument right out the window.
ReplyDeleteYou say that you understand that the sciences are only conceptually different, then go on to completely contradict yourself by isolating a concept like reproduction.
Does fire reproduce?
Do crystals?
"biological" Reproduction is just a physical reaction on a more complex scale.
Organisational complexity is the only difference between "life" and "non life"