Why Multiverse?

[Altfish]

The living Earth happens to be in a sphere with N lifeless planets.
The probability of this event to happen was P=Q*V, where Q<1 is the probability of life to emerge on an Earth-like planet, V=(1-Q)^N is the probability that life has not emerged on N planets. Hence, by increasing the size of the sphere, the N grows, and so P turns to zero. Therefore, the idea of a Multiverse with all kinds of possibilities and physical constants does not help the idea of Abiogenesis.

If we take the totality of an infinite number of lifeless planets (which are suitable for life), then this does not help the idea that life appeared on Earth. The general rule of sterility does not allow this. The exception to the law of sterility is a real (God's) miracle.
NASA tries not to violate the sterility of space by sterilizing its probes before launch.

[0801.0246] Does God So Love the Multiverse? (arxiv.org)

DISCUSSION:

I have mind-vision, not eye-vision.

The probability, that you won the lottery if you have won it, is 100%. But the probability, that you will lottery is less than 100%. The same way the probability of life emerging on Earth, before it has happened is near zero.

What about my logic? I know textbooks, but I have a new results. Science is only then Science if it can be falsified by a genius.

Opinion: "I do not agree. The probability that I will win the lottery is almost nil, while the probability that someone wins the lottery is very high. Now, should that someone wonder why he, and not somebody else, won the lottery?"

I reply: "There is no lower limit for life emerging probability on Earth-like planet. It ranges from total zero to some Q. Therefore, my theory has the right to exist. The probability of life emerging in perfect conditions on a planet can be zero, to win lottery is not zero. But even if probability Q is not zero, then my theory proves, that the Multiverse idea has not helped the chances for life to emerge on Earth, prior it has emerged. You are talking about 100 % probability of life on Earth after life has emerged on Earth. That all information you gave here."

"Beam me up, Scotty"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the probability of life emerging on Earth, before it has happened is near zero.

The opposite seems to be true. The likelihood of life appearing where possible may be close to 100%. Complexity arises spontaneously in certain settings (dissipative systems), and not by luck. This is a technical presentation on far-from-equilibrium states forming spontaneously under the proper conditions. I apologize that it is dry and sciency, but it addresses the idea of dissipative structures like living organism arising spontaneously.

Earth has just what is needed for life to arise and evolve for eons. By this reckoning, life was inevitable here, just like hurricanes are where the conditions for their formation facilitate their appearance. No luck is involved apart from the conditions being present, but if they are, the rest follows perforce according to the laws of thermodynamics rather than being in violation of them for converting chaos (randomly moving molecules) to order (particles acting in concert to form a macroscopic structure like a hurricane).

Did you look at the piece on Jeremy England I linked you to a few days ago? This is some pretty interesting stuff: https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/

Science is only then Science if it can be falsified by a genius.

Actually, if you falsify something, it doesn't become a part of science, or if it already has, it is removed, like cold (desktop) fusion and superluminal neutrinos.

Falsifiability and falsification are very different things. To be a part of the corpus of science, an idea must be falsifiable but not falsified.

There is no lower limit for life emerging probability on Earth-like planet. It ranges from total zero to some x.

You post some strange things. The lower limit for the formation of life in any setting is zero, just as the upper limit is 1 (100%). I expect that that is the case in the center of the sun, where complex molecules don't form and wouldn't survive if they did.

 

[viole]

You are talking about 100 % probability of life on Earth after life has emerged on Earth. That all information you gave here.

Great. And? I also have 100% percentage probability of winning the lottery, after I won the lottery. So?

Ciao

- viole

 

[questfortruth]

Great. And? I also have 100% percentage probability of winning the lottery, after I won the lottery. So?

Ciao

- viole

But near zero prior to winning.

 

[questfortruth]

Did you look at the piece on Jeremy England I linked you to a few days ago? This is some pretty interesting stuff: https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/

"Mind is being used only for justification of Emotion" (Albert Einstein). If one wants God to be
non-active in life, he will find evidence for it.

 

[PureX]

The probability, that you won the lottery if you have won it, is 100%. But the probability, that you will win the lottery is less than 100%. The same way the probability of life emerging on Earth, before it has happened is near zero.

I am curious why you feel this is significant.

The probability of getting heads each time a coin is flipped is 50/50. Yet the probability of getting 10 heads up in a row are thousands to one. And yet after having flipped up 5 heads in a row, the odds of getting the 6th, the 7th, the 8th, the 9th, and the 10th are all still 50/50 each time. There are no 'miracles' happening here. The reason the results appear so 'miraculous' is because of our perspective in calculating the probabilities. Sort of like it depends on where we are standing, whether the pitch of the train's horn is higher or lower. Probabilities are determined by relationships. Even the extremely improbable is still possible. And may even be likely depending on the contextual perspective from which we are assessing it.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, they could have life on other planets: but Not intelligent life.
Because the ' sin issue ' started here on Earth, the ' sin issue ' needs to first be settled here on Earth before intelligent life will be elsewhere.

What hakes you think life on earth is intelligent? And what has the recent religious concept of sin got to do with not only those who dont even consider it a thing but also to very other planet in the universe?

 

[questfortruth]

Even the extremely improbable is still possible.

The probability of more than 5 sigma in Science is presumed impossible. That was used for the discovery of the Higgs boson.

 

[ecco]

You really started another thread on probability? Really? You must have a need for people to tell you your thoughts and concepts are nonsensical. You must revel in it.

 

[questfortruth]

You really started another thread on probability? Really? You must have a need for people to tell you your thoughts and concepts are nonsensical. You must revel in it.

You sound like those voices in my head.

 

[ecco]

The probability of this event to happen was P=Q*V, where Q<1 is the probability of life to emerge on an Earth-like planet, V=(1-Q)^N is the probability that life has not emerged on N planets. Hence, by increasing the size of the sphere, the N grows, and so P turns to zero. Therefore, the idea of a Multiverse with all kinds of possibilities and physical constants does not help the idea of Abiogenesis.

But the probability of more than 5 sigma in Science is presumed impossible.

Your math "proves" that it is impossible for chains of amino acids to combine to make first life - a simple cell.

That must mean it is even more impossible for first life to be an ant instead of just a cell. An ant is far more complex than just a cell. The odds against that happening are probably beyond comprehension.

The odds against a human as first life is probably approaching 1 in infinity. Wouldn't you agree?

Yet, somehow, you accept that first life was a fully functional omni-all entity. Somehow you ignore all aspects of probability, and reason and logic, when it comes to your own form of "first-life". Is that a double standard or just hypocrisy?

 

[ChristineM]

You sound like those voices in my head.

Ya don't say?

 

[ecco]

You sound like those voices in my head.

You admit to hearing voices in your head. That explains a lot.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I have mind-vision, not eye-vision.

If you mean you are "seeing" things that aren't there, I'm pretty sure we'd agree with you on that.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I do not agree. The probability that I will win the lottery is almost nil, while the probability that someone wins the lottery is very high. Now, should that someone wonder why he, and not somebody else, won the lottery?

If you do not understand something as simple as that, then you should not be surprised that your peer reviewers laugh at whatever you give to them.

Ciao

- viole

please don’t laugh

it is not kind

 

[ElishaElijah]

“O Lord, my heart is not lifted up; my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me. But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child is my soul within me. O Israel, hope in the Lord from this time forth and forevermore.”
‭‭Psalm‬ ‭131:1-3‬ ‭ESV‬‬

God is so good!

 

[blü 2]

The living Earth happens to be in a sphere with N lifeless planets.
The probability of this event to happen was P=Q*V, where Q<1 is the probability of life to emerge on an Earth-like planet, V=(1-Q)^N is the probability that life has not emerged on N planets. Hence, by increasing the size of the sphere, the N grows, and so P turns to zero. Therefore, the idea of a Multiverse with all kinds of possibilities and physical constants does not help the idea of Abiogenesis.

If we take the totality of an infinite number of lifeless planets (which are suitable for life), then this does not help the idea that life appeared on Earth. The general rule of sterility does not allow this. The exception to the law of sterility is a real (God's) miracle.
NASA tries not to violate the sterility of space by sterilizing its probes before launch.

[0801.0246] Does God So Love the Multiverse? (arxiv.org)

DISCUSSION:

I have mind-vision, not eye-vision. What about my logic? I know textbooks, but I have a new results. Science is only then Science if it can be falsified by a genius.

Opinion: "I do not agree. The probability that I will win the lottery is almost nil, while the probability that someone wins the lottery is very high. Now, should that someone wonder why he, and not somebody else, won the lottery?"

I reply: "There is no lower limit for life emerging probability on Earth-like planet. It ranges from total zero to some Q. Therefore, my theory has the right to exist. The probability of life emerging in perfect conditions on a planet can be zero, to win lottery is not zero. But even if probability Q is not zero, then my theory proves, that the Multiverse idea has not helped the chances for life to emerge on Earth, prior it has emerged. You are talking about 100 % probability of life on Earth after life has emerged on Earth. That all information you gave here. The probability, that you won the lottery if you have won it, is 100%. But the probability, that you will win lottery is less than 100%. The same way the probability of life emerging on Earth, before it has happened is near zero.

Opinion: " The Q is not small:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/

Me:
"Mind is being used only for justification of Emotion" (Albert Einstein). If one wants God to be
non-active in life, he will find evidence for it.

Even the extremely improbable is still possible. But the probability of more than 5 sigma in Science is presumed impossible. That was used for the discovery of the Higgs boson.

Opinion: "You really started another thread on probability? Really? You must have a need for people to tell you your thoughts and concepts are nonsensical. You must revel in it."
Me:
You sound like those voices in my head.

The probability of life on Earth is 1.0.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

What makes you think life on earth is intelligent? And what has the recent religious concept of sin got to do with not only those who dont even consider it a thing but also to very other planet in the universe?

Good one ! Yes, is there intelligent life on Earth ? ______
What I mean by intelligent is that humans have the ability to think deeper things through.
Sure, breaking man's laws are considered as 'crimes', but breaking God's laws are considered as 'sins'.
Both lean towards / wrongdoing whether it is called as a crime or a sin.
So, to me ' sin ' is Not a recent religious concept but often goes hand in hand with men's laws.
Even though we don't call getting a speeding ticket as sinning against the motor-vehicle code.
It is still a wrongdoing whether done on purpose or by accident.
Once the 'sin or crime issue' is settled here on Earth, then there will be future intelligent life elsewhere.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

“O Lord, my heart is not lifted up; my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me. But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child is my soul within me. O Israel, hope in the Lord from this time forth and forevermore.”
‭‭Psalm‬s ‭131:1-3‬ ‭ESV‬‬ God is so good!

Psalms 130:7 Let Israel hope in the LORD (YHWH)
In the days of the psalmist it was fleshly national Israel, but God abandoned that 'house of worship' - Matthew 23:38
Since Pentecost the 'Israel of God ' is 'No longer a fleshly national nation' but the 'Christian congregation'.
A 'spiritual nation' that can't be located on any map. A nations without borders or boundries.
Now a ' spiritual nation ' a ' spiritual house of worship ' as found at 1 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 2:9; Galatians 4:26.
For ' Jerusalem above ' is Now the seat of government with Christ as King of God's Kingdom government.
The ' spiritual nation ' (Christian congregation) that produces Kingdom fruits - Matthew 21:43

 

[PruePhillip]

The living Earth happens to be in a sphere with N lifeless planets.
.

You been watching the same videos I watch.

The problem with this idea is that someone will make a theological issue of it.
But having multi-universes is no closer to answer the ultimate question than
having a single universe. Why and how?