is it reasonable to take the existence of life and work backwards to say "it's surprising that all these factors worked out to allow life to happen"?it's like saying that a hill was fine tuned to enable a ball to roll down it.regardless of what physical laws ended up being, it seems reasonable to assume that if life is capable of emerging from them, then it would. is it even an interesting question to ask? shit is the way it is because of the way the universe is. a creature without a nose doesn't ask about the smell of a rose. we only know of one way that life works. and it's within the rules laid out by the one universe we observe, by necessity.how can we say that if the properties of the universe were different that some other form of life wouldn't emerge instead? or any other manner of shit that isn't possible here but might be possible there?
>>16524196Do you have any idea how absurd it is we have the moon?
>>16524196It's just the way it is =/= 'fune tuned"
>>16524198We went to the moon you conspiritard
the existence of consciousness proves the universe was fine tuned. life exists because consciousness exists. the chance of life emerging are extremely low. only a retard would think the universe just so happen to be the exact way for life to exist. there is no reason for the universe to exist at all, it exists because it's a simulation or created by consciousness.
I'll explain it for retards.life only exists because C can create infinitely long molecules that can create infinite possibilities in how they behave. just remove C and life simply can't exist, while there are lots of other requirements that need to be fulfilled for life to exist. but retards think this is somehow pure coincidence.
>it makes no sense how humans evolved when looking at how evolution normally works.>it makes no sense that consciousness can exist.>it makes no sense that life can create consciousness. connecting a bunch of neurons does not create consciousness.>it makes no sense that only humans have consciousness, from what it looks like, most humans seem to not even have consciousness -see how many people think in their head, the NPC memebut the universe totally isn't fine tuned for life. it's all just a coincidence from the infinite possibilities the universe could have been that can't create life.
>>16524196if the universe isnt fine tuned, where are all the other possible universes then?
Actually fine tuning implies a multiverse of random parameters where you eventually strike the correct tuning for life. So of course life would find itself in a universe fine tuned for it to exist, that's just the anthropic principle.>but the universe totally isn't fine tuned for lifeNobody has ever said this btw.
>>16524663it's one of these>simulation (most likely)>fine tuned, by consciousness (2nd most likely)>infinite universes>one universe that is recreated infinitely
>>16524669Another option is that universe constants vary over massive timescales, giving a universe that shifts into being life-permissible from time to time.
>>16524196earth happens to be fine tuned for lifemost of the universe and its history looks to be pretty bad for life
>>16524679it's not just earth has perfect conditions but if the mass extinctions never happened, especially the dinosaur one, then humans would never exist and it still makes no sense how humans happened. it makes no sense how all dinosaurs died but birds and mammals survived.
>>16524690>All extinction events must eradicate 100% of lifeUh no
>>16524692not what it says you retard
>>16524698Then you understand how an extinction event can kill some species while others manage to survive it.
how different could a different universe be? like, would everything have the same type of fundamental particles? it lends credence to a simulation hypothesis, because I think it would be very interesting to see how a different universe would evolve with different parameters. you could imagine advanced creatures asking the same question but having the ability to find out.
>>16524226>the existence of fish proves this pond was fine tuned. life exists because this pond exists. the chance of fish emerging from this pond are extremely low. only a retard would think the pond just so happen to be the exact way for fish to exist. there is no reason for the pond to exist at all, it exists because it's a simulation or created by niggers.Maybe the universe can't form without all these parameters in place, or theres only a few combinations its capable of. Maybe its observer bias and theres many "dead" universes. Maybe other crazy anomalies arise with different parameters, things so beyond our comprehension that its like explaining quantum physics to slug.The fish in the pond would say "how is this bacteria biome SO perfectly tuned for us..? And this perfect oxygen level as well? It was definitely intelligent design.>>16524238>>it makes no sense how humans evolved when looking at how evolution normally works.Its really not THAT crazy, we used to be monkeys and monkeys used to be prosimians. You can follow it back pretty clearly>>it makes no sense that consciousness can exist.We don't even know what consciousness is yet, or if its even special. It could very well be a product of evolution or a side effect of it>>it makes no sense that life can create consciousness. connecting a bunch of neurons does not create consciousness.We don't know that. The brain is so detailed that its impossible to entirely recreate it>>it makes no sense that only humans have consciousness, from what it looks like, most humans seem to not even have consciousness -see how many people think in their head, the NPC memeThat points to it being nothing special then, just a certain mapping of neurons>but the universe totally isn't fine tuned for life. it's all just a coincidence from the infinite possibilities the universe could have been that can't create life.You don't know what parameters the universe operates in. Observer bias also
>>16524679>>16524196We're a sample size of one, atm, with an entire unexplored galaxy. Any arguments about us being "finely tuned" are just flowery confirmation bias, they're claims citing ignorance. We have no idea if we're finely tuned or not. If you're taking a census of the ocean's biodiversity and you only have access to a sand beach and a tidal pool you're going to come to the conclusion that the ocean is mostly sand. >>16524690>it makes no sense how all dinosaurs died but birds and mammals survived.You're exposing your own internal bias here. The meteor that killed the dinosaurs made life impossible for any animal bigger than 15lbs - everything else died out. Dinosaurs were big, needed lots of food, and an environment that could churn out the millions of tons of calories that sustained them. If you're a rat you can manage on a dirty puddle, a handful of pine nuts, and a stanky root. The dinosaurs dying out makes perfect sense.
>>16524745>We don't know that. The brain is so detailed that its impossible to entirely recreate itI did neuromorphic computing research in college, so I only really have a basic comprehension of this, but my intuition is that consciousness would just emerge from a complex enough system. like how categories of "features" emerge from a diffusion model, or apparent "comprehension" of concepts like math emerge from a big enough LLM. I'm not saying that gpt 6.0 will be self aware; I think it requires a totally different architecture, but I do think that weird patterns will just emerge from very complex architectures of neurons (be they organic or digital).nothing to back this up. it's just a feeling I have.
>>16524736Just slight tweaks in various constants result in no massive particles or a universe that gets instantly pulled together by gravity. If the parameters could be tweaked, the vast majority of possible universes would be uneventful wastelands.
>>16524780can we really say that with how little we understand? I mean, with simple things like reducing the strength of the strong force or increasing the mass of an electron or whatever, sure.but can we really say that other stable structures couldn't emerge in these different universes? it's hard to put what I'm thinking into words. the way our universe works is very conducive to life made of molecules. are fermions and bosons the most fundamental thing? are there deeper down stuff that they're made of? how is a universe made? would all universes have fermions and bosons? maybe the properties of this universe seem weird but maybe this is literally the only way things are. photons might be inherent to all possible realities and they have the same speed in all of them.like, if fusing hydrogen to helium didn't release energy, then it seems obvious that nothing of significance would emerge in the universe. or if atoms were less stable than free hadrons, etc.I'm talking philosophy at this point, but it is fun to imagine that wildly different universes could exist. ones without stars and planets and galaxies but with some other stuff that still yields life.
>>16524801Yea, it might be a bit bold to assume life could to not spawn in a different configuration of parameters. However some configurations can easily be predicted to be uninteresting voids, namely if the universe expanded a bit too fast and just spread everything too thin and if particles could not unite into some metastable structure at all. It's hard to imagine life in an empty void with near zero interaction of any kind.>but maybe this is literally the only way things are.Could be, but then you want an explanation as to why the parameters necessarily got set to what they are. Were the parameters dialed in by the simulation creator? Or is it just necessary that gravity has a certain strength for some reason? Although the simulation argument just pushes it one step further back (why is there a base universe in which the simulator exists?).The natural and least specific solution a la Occam's razor is that there is a selection effect at play and that we're just seeing a certain result picked out from the noise due to the anhtropic principle. One such thought is that the universe is just a giant noise machine that runs eternally. Eventually you are going to get some noise patterns that are metastable and look like interesting things. Imagine a giant game of life board that had cells swap color with a 1% chance each cycle, eventually you would generate a stable computer structure that simulates a world of beings like us.My guess is that the smallest units of this universe is this type of random noise that eventually flickers into something interesting.
>>16524757>but my intuition is that consciousness would just emerge from a complex enough systemno. why would it? consciousness is on a scale. even worms with 100 neurons can show advanced behaviour, learn and are obviously not machines. "just one more layer, bro" will not suddenly make a techno god to emerge. consciousness is a different category than the bottom-up mechanistic description of the universe science and math are offering. to the clockwork universe of science consciousness can and should not exist.
>>16524198Yeah there’s a whole book about the absurdity of the moon.
>>16524812worms have a different architecture.I don't think a bigger transformer will be sentient but it's interesting that it seems like identifiable complexity comes out of scaling these things up. I could believe that consciousness could come the same way.could be wrong but that's my prediction. we'll see what happens, regardless.>consciousness is a different category than the bottom-up mechanistic description of the universe I'd like to think that but the problem is if you damage the brain, the mind is affected. lobotomies, cancers, trauma. biology created this structure and when the structure is fucked up it doesn't work right. so it doesn't seem like anything special. it just emerges from putting the pieces together in the right way. maybe there is more to it and it would be very cool to be proven wrong.
>>16524833what you are saying that if you take an algorithm and add more algorithm suddenly *snip* you have consciousness. which would mean by extension that consciousness is an algorithm. if that were true then the worm (and all other life) would be machines. but that is obviously not the case. and this difference as hard as it is to quantify, is exactly what life is. our bodies are in fact ultra complex nano machines, cant argue against that. but there is something more.>I'd like to think that but the problem is if you damage the brain, the mind is affected. lobotomies, cancers, trauma. biology created this structure and when the structure is fucked up it doesn't work right. so it doesn't seem like anything special. it just emerges from putting the pieces together in the right wayyou can literally disconnect the consciousness by using anaesthesia. I believe that the brain is simply an interface. consciousness is simply not possible in this physical, causality based universe.
>>16524851It isn't just the body. The cells won't just snap to life if you put all of the pieces together. The consciousness question is the animist question, the vital force. Why is soulless machina the background of life? But not just the background, but the foreground, every thread and piece.It isn't any different from the theory of universal cooling and all of the subatomic particles coming out of goop. They are reinventing the same ancient stories as man from mud. This evolution of the gaps story is timeless.
>>16524874>The cells won't just snap to life if you put all of the pieces together.why not? why wouldnt an artificial cell not be possible?
>>16524669its none of those
>>16524198There are an infinite amount of planets that have a moon
>>16524196Do you even realize how big thing is? Life would happen even if there was low probability of it, and if it didn't happen you wouldn't notice.
>>16525120Then feel free to list them in order from smallest mass to largest mass since you totally have all the information necessary to draw that conclusion.
>it's a miraculous coincidence that life happened exactly where it was most likely to happen!Why are people fucking retarded
>>16525134why do retards like you even bother posting? everyone can immediately see what a retard you are and nobody is going to argue with a fucking retard like you
>Earth is 0.00000117% alive by mass>The solar system is 0.00003% Earth by mass>The sun is one of 400,000,000,000 stars in the galaxy >The galaxy is one of 200,000,000,000Only 4e-36% of the universe is alive. Nice "fine tuning"
>evolution/natural selection basically doesn't work for other life forms unless it's an extreme like mass extinction>life forms tend to stop evolving the moment they reach minimal requirements for survival of the species>evolution worked way too well for humans, the complete opposite of how it works for any other life form>natural selection doesn't work how it should for other life, it works way too well for humansthis is perfectly normal and don't question it
>>16525161Schizophrenia and you type like the /sfg/ commie
>>16525134Don't bother. None of these guys understand statistics
>>16525167Clearly you don't since you seem to think statistics are a priori instead of ad hoc.
>>16525167>None of these guys understand statisticsyou mean like you retard>>16525163>retard has no argument
>>16525134oh and what are all of the conditions necessary for life?
Fine tuning + anthropic princple pretty much guarantees some sort of selection effect from some multiverses.
>>16525187The pre conditions are what earth had just before life appeared
>>16524196The universe isn't fine tuned
>>16525150Exactly These retards don't actually think about thisThis thread is nothing more than crypto evolution denial.
>>16524874>The consciousness question is the animist question, the vital force.The elan vital or life force has been falsified. Life is just chemical reactions.>They are reinventing the same ancient stories as man from mud. This evolution of the gaps story is timeless."Evolution of the gaps" isn't real. Your God doesn't exist and creationism is false.>>16524900They can. That guy is just a creationist who hates reality.
>>16525241you are a retard, the guy was being sarcastic. retards like you are easy to spot by not having any arguments.
>>16525252>argumentsThis isn't a matter of argument. Science is about facts. Refute >>16525150 or fuck off.
>>16525293here's a fact you are a retard
>>16525298Take your pills faggot
>>16525293the universe is a simulation you retard, it has no size, all the other solar systems and galaxies don't exist>>16525300take your pills retard
>>16525192multiverse is just shizzo rambling
>>16525242>The elan vital or life force has been falsified. Life is just chemical reactions.ok walk us through how and why this is
consciousness itself is proof the universe is fake
>>16525308No
>>16525313Its fake until you step on a tack, then physical reality becomes real very quickly.Penrose-Hameroff are probably correct. Explains why noble gasses turn off conciousness despite no classical chemistry reactions going on when certain inert gasses cross blood brain barrier.
>>16525382>Penrose-Hameroff are probably correct.it's just shizzo rambling. nothing about this is correct
>>16524196If the conditions for intelegent life didn't exist then there wouldn't be anyone here to think about how unlikely it is.As far as we can tell technological life looks pretty rare so maybe we did get really lucky.
>>16525585>The anthropic principle
>>16525605Yep can you find a logical flaw with it?
>>16524196>reasonable to assume that if life is capable of emerging from them, then it would.No, not in this context! If it was reasonable then new life would have emerged a trillion times on this planet since the last 4-5 billion years it had a chance to. But no, it just emerged once, during one very special pico second when to very special molecules collided just perfectly, never to be done again.There is nothing capable about that, infact it is standard statistics to regard such event as IMPOSSIBLE.
>>16525678>There is nothing capable about that, infact it is standard statistics to regard such event as IMPOSSIBLE.which implies it was engineered and fine tuned for this one event to happen
>>16525678it's not just about how impossible it was for life to happen but also all the events with impossible odds that lead to humans to evolve in the end
>>16525640only the assumption that the machinations of life arose inevitably from physics.funny how it cannot be created in a lab environment.
>>16525707Okay bro we get it, Vishnu made life. You win.
>>16525715so you're saying can life be created in a lab? got a source for that or just iflscience fantasy?
>>16525707I'm no biologist and have no idea how life first started but I'm not a fan of "god of the gaps", just because we don't know how today doesn't mean it's impossible.
>>16525707And when life is created in a lab you will move onto saying "B-but a universe can't be created in a lab!". And then "simulated worlds don't count!"
>>16525721>>16525715you guys are talking past each other. you have to make clear what kind of perspective you are assuming. for example if you take the purely scientific stance by constraining yourself to some fundamental ways on how you try to model the world. this obviously is great, but because this so constraint you quickly have to turn to obviously wrong shizzo ideas like multiverse, string theories or whatever pseudo science penrose claims about consciousness. that's just the rule of the game.or you can take an extended, more philosophical stance and actually openly thinking about such issues. but then you have to accept that it is not strictly scientific anymore.
>>16525848>if you look at things scientifically you need to accept untested theoriesLol no.
>>16524900>why not? why wouldnt an artificial cell not be possible?They have tried, hard. In a lab with every precursor (all of which are essentially impossible to occur randomly, and how do they all happen to spontaneously appear in the same place on a whole planet?) in 99.9% lab grade purity (how is a prebiotic earth selecting chirality without cells to perform CISS?) and they can't do it. Yet I am expected to believe this happened in a warm slopping tidal pool?>>16525242>They canThey literally cannot. There is a nobel prize waiting for whoever does it. It can't be that hard to do if it just randomly occurred in a fucked up environment right?
>>16525728>just because we don't know how today doesn't mean it's impossible.We actually DO know how it has to happened. Without cellular life, there are very limited amounts of ways available to create even the most basic part of a "simple" cell. We know what they are, it's quite basic chemistry, and the odds of even one necessary molecule randomly occurring is so unlikely that the universe would have to run through multiple cycles of heat death to get one (1) molecule.
>>16525888Source? I'm interested to hear how we know seeing it can't be reproduced in a lab.
>>16525914https://youtu.be/71dqAFUb-v0?si=I06dRwDGHkM3P6BfThis series sums up everything you need to know in a neat and concise manner. Unfortunately he is a Christian fundie creationist but the series is totally absent of religious dogma and breaks down all the facts for you in a completely secular and scientific manner. He is a highly accredited phd chemist professor and has called all the top origin of life people to prove out any one of these many topics in the lab. They have a lot to gain by debunking him and they seethe at the mention of him, big name guy in the origin of life world and would make christoids mald if they could debunk literally a single point. But they can't. The main youtube debunkooor of his videos is a literal high school teacher and you can watch his garbage videos to get a view of the opposing side which basically boils down to ad hominems. Disclosure, I'm not Christian and it makes me angry that we need some christ faggot retard to front the facts like this.
>you need many constants to be exactly the right balance so that solar systems can formthe universe isn't five tuned just trust me bro
>>16524198Do you? I don't think anyone knows how common earth/moon-like pairs are, only thing we can say is it doesn't appear to be extremely common, because the only example we see of it in our solar system is ours.Earth being fine-tuned for life seems like a lukewarm take in any case, there are literal trillions of planets in the universe, the conditions are bound to be good on some of them. If the actual laws of physics were fine-tuned for life, that would be something to think about. The obvious implication being that there might be literal trillions of different universes as well. But frankly, despite various ideas being thrown around about it, our current understanding of physics is just too limited to determine whether we're living in an unlikely place or a likely place.
it's actually just the fine-structure constant
>>16525754>when life is created in a lablmao.they can create exotic particles and never before seen chemical elements in labs, but still to this day cannot make something as fundamental to life as protoplasm, let alone a single living cell or something as advanced as a cockroach.
How are creationists so retarded?They don't even know what they're arguing anymore, they just throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. Look at the 5 guys posting variations on the same argument in this thread, none of which relate at all to abiogenesis or evolution, they just heard it as a talking point from a youtube video. They can't even explain what they're trying to disprove.
>>16526564you are a retard and that's why you can't post any arguments just cry like the retard you are
>>16526568Which arguments?The common ones I've seen are>it's unlikely to have happenedIf you flip a coin 100 times in a row, you are GUARANTEED to get a set of heads and tails in some specific orderGetting any specific order of heads and tails is 1 in 1267650600228229401496703205376. Therefore, by your logic, it is impossible to have gotten any set of heads and tails. Obviously wrong.>They haven't repeated it yetSee above, rare events happen all the time constantly, but to get a rare event to happen again when you want it to is near impossible. Flip another 100 coins, some of them weighted. You can't weight all of them, and you can't weight every one perfectly. It's still going to be very hard to repeat until you find the "trick" to it.
>>16526573the existence of consciousness is proof it's not a coincidence but a retard doesn't understand consciousnessa retard doesn't understand how so many things need to perfectly work together to make life even possible that it can't be a coincidenceonly a retard is against the most likely explanation -simulation
>>16526573How is chirality selected for without cellular induced spin stability?
the universe literally can't create consciousness>life is just a lucky coincidence you just don't understand how the universe works ack
>>16526573Why do you want to believe in physicalism?
conciseness literally creates reality>the universe being fine tuned for life is just a coincidence
>>16526707>the universe being fine tuned for lifeIt's literally an empty void
>>16524196Stupidest argument ever. Retard logic defined.
>>16526588That's nothing more than sheet unadulterated leap of logic. No basis in reason of fact. Whimsical fantasy
>>16526691non argument>>16526590Even in space we've found L amino acids forming naturally by opening up asteroids that hit earth. it seems nature just prefers one to the other>>16526588non argument
>>16526573meanwhile you just hide behind abstractions. you take a set of things (not specified obviously) and say that's 1 event. and now you claim this event can randomly happen because, well we exist. intellectually lazy at best.
>>16526807>randomly Obviously not, you can't just put elements together and form shit. Stuff has a natural way it comes together dictated by physics, the argument that "if everything is random..." is obviously not true.>if everything was random, then the set of 100 flips could contain a chairSure, but it's not random, it's a coin that we're flipping that can land heads or tails>if everything was random, a particular human is unlikely Sure, but it's not random, it's a causal chain of physics and chemistry that naturally lead up to this point
>>16526810>if everything was random, then the set of 100 flips could contain a chairholy shit you really are literally retarded
>>16526798>Even in space we've found L amino acids forming naturally by opening up asteroids that hit earth. it seems nature just prefers one to the otherThat's a straight up fucking lie. All the compounds found from asteroids are universally bichiral.
>>16526829>autistic retard doesn't understand figures of speech
>>16526838Ah you were partly right, only some are preferentially selected for L it seems
>>16526829retard he's trying to explain to you that creation of life wasn't random and that life is built into the universe
>>16526862And you need lab grade chiral purity for creating the higher order compounds because a single wrong handed chiral molecule fucks everything. Not to mention the absurd (see; impossible) statistical improbability of even a single one of those long chain compounds occuring randomly. Let alone millions and billions of them, in the same place, along with everything else, in the same place. How did this happen in primordial soup? There is a reason that a lot of real scientists become religious, science itself makes the case for intelligent design.
>>16526865NoThe point I was trying to make to >>16526829 was that the odds are balanced in favor of anything that can make more of itself, no matter what that thing is.If something is allowed by chemistry, it is infinitely more likely than any outcome that is not. >>16526866>a single wrong handed chiral molecule fucks everythingEven accounting for hyperbole, this isn't true. Can you back that up at all?>occurring randomly See above for discussion of randomness, you're making a non-pointFor some reason scientists only become less religious as time goes on. Funny that.
>>16526869>Even accounting for hyperbole, this isn't true. Can you back that up at all?Have you tried taking chem 101? Would you like me to send you a link that teaches high school students about chirality?>See above for discussion of randomnessYour pseudo drivel doesn't matter in the real world when probabilities of even one of the millions of factors needed to randomly create a "simple" cell exceeds multiple lifespans of the universe.
>>16526874>no I cannotGood to know. >I don't understand probability, therefore the thing you say is impossibleIf you flipped 100 coins in a row every second, it'd take 3x10^12 lifetimes of the universe to get the same flip as meTherefore, it's impossible for me to have gotten that set of flips.
>>16526880>more pseudo drivel from someone who doesn't have a 16 year old chemistry students level of knowledgeGives me great satisfaction that your type of people are my opponents.
>>16526883Your English could use work. Can you substantiate any claims you made? >noThen why are you crying when I post actual papers? Maybe respond to that one.
>>16526854that's not a figure of speech, ESL.that's you strawmanning to the point of complete non sequitur
why can't people have a reasonable discussion?why speak in absolutes as if you (we) understand everything. saying "God did it" is a non answer. why are their rainbows? it's a promise from God to not flood us again. oh ok.
>>16527166>why speak in absolutes as if you (we) understand everythingPrebiotic chemistry is absolute
>>16527166Also>saying "God did it" is a non answerWhy is it not? Take off your fedora for a second. When you actually look into the processes that abiogenesis needs, you look upon the face of God. And I'm not a christcuck.
>>16527184because investigation ends at that point. if we accept rainbows as an act of God and look no further, then we miss out on potentially understanding the process.
>>16527249>because investigation ends at that pointNo one is stopping the investigation. In fact every christ tard scientist encourages origin of life researcher to investigate further because the further you look into abiogenesis, the worse it gets for "random chance" believers. Why can't a simple cell be created in a lab with all the components?
>>16527258what is a "simple cell"? what are "the components"?it's unlikely a fully formed cell would just emerge from a soup of precursors. what would be more likely is a more primitive replicator would self assemble and then it would get better over time, because ones that have better success would create more duplicates.why haven't we done it? it's impossible or we don't fully understand the process.
>>16527292>what is a "simple cell"?A 12 year olds biology textbook can answer this>what are "the components"?As above>it's unlikely a fully formed cell would just emerge from a soup of precursors. Yes>what would be more likely is a more primitive replicator would self assemble and then it would get better over time, because ones that have better success would create more duplicates.Studies have been done on how much the simple cell can be pared down while still retaining basic functionality. Spoiler alert: it's not a lot and is basically the same simple cell you see today.
>>16527292>why haven't we done it?We have tried, very, very hard.>it's impossible or we don't fully understand the process.We can't recreate what happened in a muddy tidal pool full of bullshit, in a modern lab, with full understanding of the components and functions of a cell? Yeah, there's your answer
>>16527292>what are "the components"?the main component is protoplasm, which scientists have no idea how to create.
>>16527299>>A 12 year olds biology textbook can answer thisAnd yet you can't articulate it. Funny that.
>>16527304Here you go anon
>>16527306>eukariotic cell>simple cellThese two are not the same thing. Good try though.
>>16527292well it is impossible to recreate the conditions of our section of the universe over millions of light years and billions of years.a dishonest person asks why nobody can do this just so they can give a dogmatic answer.
>>16527301a muddy tidal pool full of bullshit will already have a bunch of life byproducts (RNAse, etc.). so you have to purify all the shit out that might confound the results or potentially destroy the primitive proto-life you want to create. it would be easier if everything wasn't already contaminated from life already.
>>16527299>Studies have been done on how much the simple cell can be pared down while still retaining basic functionalityhow much can you pare down a modern computer and still retain basic functionality? not much. it's all pretty critical. but that doesn't mean the first computer was about the same as the ones we have today.
>>16527313>it would be easier if everything wasn't already contaminated from life alreadybesides the source for that being your ass, laboratories are very capable of creating perfectly uncontaminated environments for chemical reactions, even extraordinarily intricate ones that would never occur on their own in nature. yet they are wholly incapable of making anything that could be considered "alive".
>>16524196If we imagine that the universe follows these rules:> The universe can only be formed a finite number of times> There are an infinitely large number of possible configurations of the universe> Only a finite number of configurations support life> All non-life supporting configurations are otherwise unremarkable. It would indicate some degree of manual fine tuning. However, if we believe the universe can form itself infinite times, or all configurations of universe are remarkable, or there are infinite number of configurations that can support life, then it is unremarkable, because any of the following counterarguments can be made:>The universe can be formed infinite times, therefore it was inevitable that any one formation would include life>There are a limited number of configurations of the universe, therefore the occurrence of one specific configuration is possible by chance>Any configuration of the universe supports life, so this particular configuration is irrelevant>Any configuration of the universe is interesting and potentially of interest to a deity, therefore this particular configuration is irrelevant.Personally I believe the first three assumptions of the fine tuning argument are correct. The weakest one is probably the 4th, but I think it's also impossible to answer fully in even multiple lifetimes.
>>16527321yeah that's crazy then I dunno. God musta done it.
>>16527327what if the universe creates its own rules as it pleases?
>>16527316This has been ran back 10000x by origin of life researchers. The answer is that the simple cell as we know it cannot be much simpler than it already is. Somewhat, yes, but not that much. Comparing it to computers is an infantile false comparison, standard reddit thinking.
>>16527331interesting that you cannot acknowledge a simple and verifiable fact (we cannot synthesize any living thing) without strawmanning it as a religious argument.
>>16524679>my legs are exactly as long as they need to be in order to reach all the way to the ground, this is obviously the work of the Giant Green Arkleseizure
>>16524690>it makes no sense how all [large animals that consume lots of energy] died but [small animals that consume little energy] survived.i know, right
>>16527412>>16524749because there were no small and water dinosaurs faggots
>>16527430Small dinosaurs are now called birds, and they survived. You can see them outside literally right now, go look.
It's a simulation, so this stuff has high to definite chances of occuring.
>>16527452you know what i mean retard
>>16527531Most other small members of nearly every species died, the few that survived are the common ancestors of most of what is alive today on the surface
>>16524196We don't even know if the universe is fine tuned. The universal constants may only be artifacts of our equations rather than fundamental properties of the universe. The true constants of the universe could be like pi rather than arbitrary.
>>16524196You are correct, there is nothing weird or strange about the conditions in which life has arisen - it exist precisely because the conditions allowed that to happen. If conditions were different then either life would be different or we wouldn't be here to talk about it. When water can move, it moves, where fire can burn, it burns. We are no different, just more complicated. In order for us to exist in our current forms, Universe had to be like it is.
>>16525120Most are like pebbles compared to their planets. the Moon, on the other hand, is large enough to knead the crust and aid in techtonics.
>>16525120No terrestrial planet has a moon like Luna. Only the gas giants had enough accretial matter to form large moons. And yet, without our moon, no life would exist here on Earth.
>>16530976> No terrestrial planet has a moon like Luna.Anon, please... don't make a fool our of yourself. You have seen precisely one Earth like planet ans you have no clue what moons have trilions of trilions of similar planets.
>>16531016Don't be a retard.
>>16525885>They have tried, hard. In a lab with every precursor (all of which are essentially impossible to occur randomly, and how do they all happen to spontaneously appear in the same place on a whole planet?) in 99.9% lab grade purity (how is a prebiotic earth selecting chirality without cells to perform CISS?) and they can't do it. Yet I am expected to believe this happened in a warm slopping tidal pool?They don't have one key component - bilions of years. I suspect they might lack even more, they probably cannot recreate all the conditions.
>>16531017>Don't be a retard.do you know where you are?
>>16531021in other words abiogenesis is non-falsifiable and therefore not science.>>>/x/
>>16531037you killed the thread. good work, anon
>>16524757>apparent is the key word, it's been proven times and times that the biggest of these LLMs don't have the most basic fundamental level of reasoningthis means that they haven't brought us one step closer to proving that consciousness is material and possible to reproduce
>>16525853yes anon because by scientifically he means science the major religion of the 21th century
>>16526883you shouldn't have replied after he posted his coin flip bullshit twice lmaoaccording to him, we're supposed to believe that somehow despite all we know about the universe, it happened multiple times, so many times that all these factors alignednevermind that the universe starting and ending multiple times defies everything we know about physics, we're supposed to take on the religious dogma that there are infinitely multiple universes, just because he prefers an uncaring random world to a creator for humanityit's thinly veiled bad philosophy, because if they were to argue philosophy they'd lose, so they disguise it as material facts
>>16532593>nevermind that the universe starting and ending multiple times>defies everything we know about physicsyou mean like consciousness? we literally know nothing about physics and how the universe works
>>16532603but what little we do know doesn't work with any of those arguments, and we are expected to just accept thisatheist theology is weak in it's philosophy and can't prove anything with its "science", it's truly ogre
>>16525728>the söience doesn't need empiricism because then you will move the goal posts
>>16532609consciousness exists-means everything we know and physics and the universe is a lie. we are just looking at some hologram.
>>16532781how so
>>16525304a simulation of what
>>16525934>Unfortunately he is a Christian fundie creationistwhat a surprise
>>16532593>a creatorlol
>>16524198>>16524813>>16525120>>16526201Theia and Panspermia blocks your path.......https://www.astronomy.com/science/theia-slammed-into-earth-left-marks-and-then-formed-the-moon-study-suggests/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant-impact_hypothesis
why can science disciples believe in multiverse, strings, simulation theory, the most complex thing in the universe randomly coming into existence and other assorted shizzo theories, but a creator is too much?
>>16534918My guess is because creator theory gets easily tied to religion intentionally or unintentionallyThat makes it hard to believe
The idea of God existing doesn't conflict with the complexity of the universe at all.>Plank length>Speed of light>Quantum physics>etc.All of these concepts could have been created by God. God could have created all of these elaborate physical properties because it could be the only way to create a living universe that stays coherent for trillions of years and supports life. It's also possible that God does not exist and all of these unique properties just happened by chance. I don't think it's wrong to believe everything happened by chance, and I won't insult people who believe that.However, I think a creator, God, brainstorming and selecting all of these properties to create a universe where life can exist isn't a far fetched idea and I tend to like this idea myself. Whether there is a creator or not doesn't change anything at all. It shouldn't affect how you live your life and it shouldn't make you hateful to people who have different ideas than you on how and why the universe functions the way it does.
>>16535537fuck off weeb
>>16535577Be nice. She loves astronomy and sci-fi and one of her hobbies is stargazing via telescope.
>>16535626> armillary sphere with astrology on it> actual rug on bed> nazi jewish star badge on pillow caseall kinds of retarded
>>16524851Existential arguments like this are concerning, what you define yourself as you vs other is alarming as well. Maybe do not strongly interpret concepts we might literally be perceptually blind to?
>>16534918Who created the creator? Goal post moved slightly, cause effect dialectic. We apply the concept of a maker to stuff because there's stuff, but that's just our concepts. Stuff was around before concepts, so, a tad awkward. Lol. Worry about stuff or not, stuff is.
When Big Bang happened, there were equal amounts of matter and antimatter which were terminating each other until an occasional mistake happened - the antimatter was terminating faster than the matter, so eventually by the moment all the antimatter was neutralized by matter, a tiny bit of matter stayed after this process of equalization, and that leftover is what everything is made of today, it just didn't return to the initial state of singularity. Opinion no2.After watching tons of vids, an idea came to my mind. What if the Big bang has similar nature (and its ending)as for example, a star has?I'll explain. We have nebulae, gas gets tight in some parts of it, forms a star that shines and burns bright, has some coagulated debris like planets(and even some bugs running on them) on its orbits, it an epic scenery and all. But this fest of light and fireworks is not endless. The star actually exists only because it has some energy to sustain nuclear reactions in its body and core, those nuclear reactions(directed towards outer space) protect the star from being compressed and destroyed by gravity. It's every star's fate. When the energy will burn out the gravity will step in and literally turn the star into a tiny milli-micro speckle of initial state of matter and everything - into a black hole. This is the main point. What if a star, like our sun, is a micro model of big bang? Everything we see around in its variety is just a colorful visual short-term demonstration of big bang, an explosion that keeps expanding and "burning" until it has the energy to resist the counterforce-gravity, similarly to the star, that is only alive because it still has nuclear fuel to fight back gravity, that tries to compress it to the state of "nothingness", so returning back to big bang, when the energy, fuel of big bang(our universe basically) will run out, the gravity will return it to singularity, to a state of black hole, which is a tiny speck of initial 'balanced" nothingness?
>>16524196One hidden assumption not properly addressed in this thread: just because life is relatively scarce and unlikely does not mean life is somehow special. It's fallacious reasoning for a human to pretend that he can be outside of his body, mind and universe to independently declare like a god what the role of life, consciousness and humanity is in the universe. So both the doomtard and the religitard can fuck right off.
>>16537463What if the antimatter is just in the galaxy over? It's not like we could really ever tell if that were the case, and it'd also explain where it all went (no where, just anywhere that it mixed with matter is now galactic void
>>16537563Antimatter is the opposite electrical charge of matter and the electromagnetic force is way stronger than gravity. I think we would notice because entire galaxies would just blink out of existence from merging with others.
>>16537593It's not like galactic mergers happen on human life scales or even evolutionary life scales, it's really very slow considering the sizes.On top of that, most stares don't collide because galaxies are mostly empty
>>16537463>When Big Bang happened, there were equal amounts of matter and antimatter>source: it was revealed to me in a dream
>>16537638Science says so, but Baryogenesis has explanations for why this "system bug" happened.Logically, when you throw a stone into a still pond you observe radial waves, they should disappear soon and the surface of the pond should get even again, return to its initial state, but in universal reality you see the remaining of the waves never calming down, they keep on moving on and on, and this is strange, it's a bug in the game, nothing should've existed by default, the universe is a byproduct of a micro-bug, the matter and antimatter appeared as two equal halves of a one whole, the singularity, and when the micro-fluctuation(big bang) happened, these two halves should've returned into initial state, eliminating each other, just like the the four fundamental interactions, for some reason they didn't, and that is the reason everything exists. Many "thinkers" everything is an illusion, a dream, they probably feel that everything is existing is just a byproduct of a 'system bug', even without these theories it's obvious that "life" is an absolutely ephemeric, pointless, "something that has no place and should've never existed", useless, completely unrelated to the model of cosmos, occasional, random event, just like, for instance, a trace of mold on a rusty mechanism on a nucleal power station.
>>16525585>If the conditions for intelegent life didn't exist then there wouldn't be anyone here to think about how unlikely it is.non argument
>>16535577anime website niggerfaggot
>>16537593Neither matter or antimatter have an overall charge.
>>16537331>Who created the creator?what a stupid question. there is no causality or time outside the physical universe. it just is.
>>16539231>but the universe can't just beAlex, show me what is special pleading
>>16539381take your shizzo meds
>>16524198There are some unique things about our moon, such as how big it is compared to the Earth, but no it's not absurd that we have it. Planets with moons seem to be the norm, not the exception. We're not even the only small rocky planet with a moon in our solar system. Mars and Pluto have moons too.
>>16524198Name some planets without one.
>>16524668>multiverseStopped reading. /sci/lets OUT
The Ouranos hypothesis (or the phenomenon/mechanism behind it) has influenced the evolution of life on Earth since the earliest times.Reality is chaotic and anything can happen (any configuration of matter), but there is an intelligent mechanism that predicts/calculates the possible/probable trajectories and "chooses" the ones it prefers. This mechanism is not limited to what we know as the laws of physics, but also makes subtle choices, such as those that made the evolution of intelligent life on Earth more likely (it was not "pure chance"). Everything has a purpose. There is no intelligent life on other planets. This mechanism has limits and thus prefers the continuity and most reasonable predictability of configurations, hence the physical regularities that we observe.
