Naked Science Forum
General Discussion & Feedback => Just Chat! => Topic started by: geordief on 02/02/2022 15:11:01
-
Is/was life an accident or an accident waiting to happen?
Can we conceive of any universe (one with different "initial" conditions) that would not ,at some stage evolve into a stage for life ,no matter how primitive?
Are there any theories that convincingly posit a universe of finite extent(both time and space) where it might be possible for life never to have evolved?
Or is this finite extent precondition unconvincing?
-
The entire universe seems to have been an accident. You can invent any kind of universe you like, including one where nothing changes so nothing can evolve. However if it is finite it must have a beginning and an end, so it must contain some element that initiates change. We therefore have to define a universe of infinite temporal and physical extent for life not to evolve.
-
The entire universe seems to have been an accident. You can invent any kind of universe you like, including one where nothing changes so nothing can evolve. However if it is finite it must have a beginning and an end, so it must contain some element that initiates change. We therefore have to define a universe of infinite temporal and physical extent for life not to evolve.
Oh,I am finding that confusing to follow.We know life did evolve .So are you saying that we must define a universe of finite temporal and physical extent to fit that observed outcome ( the outcome of life actually having evolved)?
Are you saying that the observed existence of life in the universe presupposes a finite universe?
Again ,quoting you ,@alancalverd "The entire universe seems to have been an accident"...
You are referring to its " beginning " or its continuous/continued evolution?
In either case are you perhaps suggesting that what we might see as physical laws or rules are simply convenient habits?
-
The appearance of life is not an example of evolution.
You are taking a narrow definition of evolution - it doesn't only apply to living things. It is fairly obvious that what we call life (and we don't have a rigorous definition of the term) evolved from terrestrial chemistry that we don't call life.
-
Quote from: alancalverd link=topic=83997.msg668197#msg668197 date=1643843260
The entire universe seems to have been an accident
This is just a philosophical assertion which makes some interesting assumptions is all.
It's actually a lack of assumption. If the Big Bang (for which there is evidence) wasn't an accident, it must have been intentional (for which there is no evidence).
-
" Is life built into the fabric of the Universe?"
Well it's not built outside of the fabric of the universe, is it?
-
" Is life built into the fabric of the Universe?"
Well it's not built outside of the fabric of the universe, is it?
That is a 10 point penalty for over literalism.
;-)
-
Are you saying that the observed existence of life in the universe presupposes a finite universe?
No, it presupposes a universe within which change is possible.
You want to consider a universe in which life cannot evolve.
Any finite universe must be capable of change because the elements in it have to appear and disappear (definition of finite) so it is possible that life can evolve in a finite universe or in an infinite universe that allows change.
The only type of universe that cannot change must be infinite, but there is an infinity of other infinite universes that can.
-
Well it's not built outside of the fabric of the universe, is it?
If you believe in Genesis, it was indeed conceived outside of the universe.
-
Yonder lies madness.
-
Well it's not built outside of the fabric of the universe, is it?
If you believe in Genesis, it was indeed conceived outside of the universe.
And where was it built- since that's the OP's actual question?
-
In God's workshop, of course.