Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Glenn101

We are not supposed to be here.

Recommended Posts

According to a Scientist at Uppsala University in Sweden, this earth should not exist, at least as it is. He created a computer model of everything that is known about the universe, it's beginnings, the exoplanets that have been found, etc. and has come to the conclusion that the earth is unique and probably should even not exist in its life friendly form.

There are implications for both the scientific and theological realms if this model holds up. The most basic one for the scientific community would be if the probability that the earth could have been formed in its present condition is so low, then how did it and we get here? Maybe we are all really figments of our own nightmares after all.

 

Glenn

Edited by Glenn101
got to it before the grammar police cuffed me

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

According to a Scientist at Uppsala University in Sweden, this earth should not exist, at least as it is. He created a computer model of everything that is known about the universe, it's beginnings, the exoplanets that have been found, etc. and has come to the conclusion that the earth is unique and probably should even not exist in its life friendly form.

There are implications for both the scientific and theological realms if this model holds up. The most basic one for the scientific community would be if the probability that the earth could have been formed in its present condition is so low, then how did it and we get here? Maybe we are all really figments of our own nightmares after all.

 

Glenn

I recently heard the odds of which you speak being like specially marking one grain of sand among all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the world and then giving a man one chance to find that one specially marked grain of sand.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

According to a Scientist at Uppsala University in Sweden, this earth should not exist, at least as it is. He created a computer model of everything that is known about the universe, it's beginnings, the exoplanets that have been found, etc. and has come to the conclusion that the earth is unique and probably should even not exist in its life friendly form.

There are implications for both the scientific and theological realms if this model holds up. The most basic one for the scientific community would be if the probability that the earth could have been formed in its present condition is so low, then how did it and we get here? Maybe we are all really figments of our own nightmares after all..................

You mean like this:

“Scientists Confirm That Reality is an Illusion - Our 3D Universe Is A Hologram,” May 4, 2012, online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qngieHWZXcM .

 “Do We Live in a Computer Simulation Run by Our Descendants? Researchers Say Idea Can Be Tested,” ScienceDaily, Dec 10, 2012, online at  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121210132752.htm . 

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You mean like this:

“Scientists Confirm That Reality is an Illusion - Our 3D Universe Is A Hologram,” May 4, 2012, online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qngieHWZXcM .

 “Do We Live in a Computer Simulation Run by Our Descendants? Researchers Say Idea Can Be Tested,” ScienceDaily, Dec 10, 2012, online at  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121210132752.htm . 

That is better than the science fiction I used to read avidly. But I think that Descartes had it right. Can a simulator simulate thinking, consciousness? We be getting close to a scientist espousing creationism here. Who would have think it????

 

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You mean like this:

“Scientists Confirm That Reality is an Illusion - Our 3D Universe Is A Hologram,” May 4, 2012, online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qngieHWZXcM .

 “Do We Live in a Computer Simulation Run by Our Descendants? Researchers Say Idea Can Be Tested,” ScienceDaily, Dec 10, 2012, online at  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121210132752.htm . 

Some scientists are sure desperate to get noticed huh?

Share this post


Link to post

You means Carl Sagan's idea that we are just one of billions of identical worlds in a humdrum universe , is WRONG ?  Faith be Goren ! ( or however it's spelled )

Share this post


Link to post

We are on a small rock of a planet, three planets out from a middle aged sun, in a arm of middling galaxy, in a local group of galaxies, in segment of a filament, in a universe of about 200 billion galaxies, in a possibly infinite number of universes.

SEE

 

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We're here. Deal with it.

Are you sure that we're not just a computer simulation??? 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Are you sure that we're not just a computer simulation??? 

Possible, but extremely unlikely. Further, even if true what would be the point?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Are you sure that we're not just a computer simulation??? 

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Are you sure that we're not just a computer simulation??? 

That was my quote. I quoted it from thesometimessaint's reply and it was attributed to him. Apologies.

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Possible, but extremely unlikely. Further, even if true what would be the point?

 

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes.

Oh, I am pretty sure myself that we are not just a computer simulation. After reading the article that Robert F. Smith linked to, I was struck by the requirements that would be necessary to make such a simulation (if it is at all possible, which I really doubt). The person or persons would have to pretty much know everything and have a computer with pretty much unlimited memory, a pretty much perfect operating system, and a pretty much perfect simulation program. Comes pretty close to admitting that it would require some type of super being, a creator, so to speak.

The article that I linked to, if the data and model are anywhere close to being correct, this earth should not have come into existence in its life friendly state. But, as The Nehor noted "We are here, get over it." 

Would that pose a problem for those who believe that we are here by blind chance when the odds against it are so great?

Glenn

Edited by Glenn101
quote clarification

Share this post


Link to post

Blind chance really isn't much of factor when going from established fact, we are here. To the proposition that we shouldn't be here. Given that 3 of the 4 most common elements in the known universe, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon, are essential to life as we know it. Plus a very long time of many billions of years chances are pretty good that life is common in the universe. 

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Blind chance really isn't much of factor when going from established fact, we are here. To the proposition that we shouldn't be here. Given that 3 of the 4 most common elements in the known universe, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon, are essential to life as we know it. Plus a very long time of many billions of years chances are pretty good that life is common in the universe. 

Finding the three elements most common to life as we know it is not the problem. The problem is finding a place friendly to life as we know it. That was one of the points the article was trying to make. The model predicts, from what is known so far, that a life friendly place for life to develop, as we know it, should not exist.

The scientist will say that our existence proves that it must have happened. That is pretty much circular.

It would seem to me as more is found out about the universe, the longer the odds are that this earth could have happened, by accident.

 

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post

Not all that hard in a very large universe. Just need heat sufficient to allow for liquid water, some carbon, and a few trace elements, and time. Given that there are about 200 billions stars in our galaxy, and about 200 billion galaxies in our known universe, chances are pretty good that life is common.

That is not a circular argument. We have plenty of evidence that we are here.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

The more we find out about our universe the more likely there is that the earth is. Whether there is life as we know it on other planets has yet to be determined. Intelligent life is a different question. Sometimes I wonder if there is intelligent life on this planet. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not all that hard in a very large universe. Just need heat sufficient to allow for liquid water, some carbon, and a few trace elements, and time. Given that there are about 200 billions stars in our galaxy, and about 200 billion galaxies in our known universe, chances are pretty good that life is common.

That is not a circular argument. We have plenty of evidence that we are here.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

The more we find out about our universe the more likely there is that the earth is. Whether there is life as we know it on other planets has yet to be determined. Intelligent life is a different question. Sometimes I wonder if there is intelligent life on this planet. ;)

There is an disagreement in the astrophysicist circles concerning the odds of finding other earth like planets in habitable zones. The article I linked to is just one take on the situation. Others have posited much as you do. I am dot arguing the evidence that we are here. That is pretty inescapable. Just that the fact that we are here does not provide evidence of anything else.

Here is one person's take on this: Marcelo Gleiser, Appleton Professor of Natural Philosophy, Dartmouth College; Author, The Island of Knowledge

"We are Unique"

"As we look at planet Earth and the factors that came into play for us to be here, we quickly realize that our planet is very special. Here is a short list: the long-term existence of a protective and oxygen-rich atmosphere; Earth's axial tilt, stabilized by a single large moon; the ozone layer and the magnetic field that jointly protect surface creatures from lethal cosmic radiation; plate tectonics that regulate the levels of carbon dioxide and keep the global temperature stable; the fact that our sun is a smallish, fairly stable star not too prone to releasing huge plasma burps. Consequently, it's rather naive to expect life — at the complexity level that exists here — to be ubiquitous across the universe."

Of course he is not an astrophysicist. But he does illustrate "the complexity level that exists here."

The requirements for simpler life to exist may be less stringent. I don't know. We haven't discovered any yet, which is not to say that we will not.

Scientists also have not discovered any natural or accidental process by which life began.

Religionists also have not been able to observe life being created by a god or divine creator.

Both camps actually proceed on faith.

Oh, we do have intelligent life here. Just extensively neurotic.

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post

It is a bit more complicated than that.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

While not proven in the scientific sense of the word. We have good evidence for the natural process of Abiogenesis. It's key features have been demonstrated in the lab.

SEE https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells/

SEE http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

SEE http://www.udonmap.com/udonthaniforum/abiogenesis-life-from-non-life-duplicated-in-lab-t13609.html

I do agree that outside this planet it is still a matter of conjecture. But it is hoped that the James Webb thermal imaging Space Telescope will help move the process further along if not confirmation.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope

Neurotic; definitely. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/28/2016 at 9:28 PM, Glenn101 said:

 The most basic one for the scientific community would be if the probability that the earth could have been formed in its present condition is so low, then how did it and we get here? 

Assuming that the Swedish scientist is right, it is still a very easy answer. We LDS believe the universe is infinite, so that means that everything that is possible (not matter how improbable) happens.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Assuming that the Swedish scientist is right, it is still a very easy answer. We LDS believe the universe is infinite, so that means that everything that is possible (not matter how improbable) happens.  

 

I just tried to quote the text and not the video, but it wouldn't let me.

I agree with your take. I am preaching to the choir. I was playing a sort of devil's advocate there. From my perspective, there has been no scientific discovery that precludes the active presence of God and is the simplest answer to how and why we are here.

 

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post

Science is Agnostic on the question of God. We all can believe anything we like. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/29/2016 at 1:39 PM, TheSkepticChristian said:

Assuming that the Swedish scientist is right, it is still a very easy answer. We LDS believe the universe is infinite, so that means that everything that is possible (not matter how improbable) happens.  

I am not so sure this Universe is infinite.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not so sure this Universe is infinite.

Neither am I, but it is really big.

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Science is Agnostic on the question of God. We all can believe anything we like. :) 

but what if someone tells you that Santa Clause gives Christmas meaning? 

Please tell me the difference between belief in a personal God and belief in Santa. 

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not so sure this Universe is infinite.

but it is required in our LDS doctrine 

 

15 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Neither am I, but it is really big.

and even if our universe is finite, it may be 100 times bigger than our observable universe. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but what if someone tells you that Santa Clause gives Christmas meaning? 

Please tell me the difference between belief in a personal God and belief in Santa. 

but it is required in our LDS doctrine

and even if our universe is finite, it may be 100 times bigger than our observable universe. 

Depends on how old that person is. A four year old?

If I have to tell you, you wouldn't understand it anyway.

It is not required by LDS doctrine. God knows the number of his creations even if we do not.

It maybe. I have no way of knowing.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Depends on how old that person is. A four year old?

If I have to tell you, you wouldn't understand it anyway.

Please tell me. Children feel good for believing in Santa. We believe good for believing in God. 

What is the difference? 

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...