31–40 of 106 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that this paper appeared in April 2019 in a journal called "Acta Prima Aprilia" should give you a clue to how seriously to take it.
The fact that the paper uses “CalTech” was the big clue for me. Also check out the references at the end. Some big clues there too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The principle is: the universe has been fine-tuned in order to ensure that life arises. 1. The only forms of life that we know about are on a planet with plentiful water and carbon dioxide. 2. Planetary dynamics may favor the production of such planets by the evaporation of gas giants. Ergo, the rules of planetary dynamics appear to favor habitats for life as we know it. This appearance may be just an artifact of our…
I think you may be mixing up the causation. How probable our universe is, we'll never know (until we can see other universes). We do know that in this universe, life exists. Thus our universe has to be "fine-tuned" for us to exist because we do. As for the universe "favor"ing life, that doesn't really make sense either. I think it's safe to say the universe favors stars, gas giants, black holes but it's pretty hard t…
Whether or not the universe favored life can be interpreted from the resulting improbability and the current results. Stars, gas giants, and black holes are probable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It would also tend to support the strong anthropic principle. How does it support that?
The principle is: the universe has been fine-tuned in order to ensure that life arises. 1. The only forms of life that we know about are on a planet with plentiful water and carbon dioxide. 2. Planetary dynamics may favor the production of such planets by the evaporation of gas giants. Ergo, the rules of planetary dynamics appear to favor habitats for life as we know it. This appearance may be just an artifact of our…
If it were that there were parameters to tweak certainly many combinations would lead to degenerate solutions, but many that wouldn't and complexity would be found in many of them, some of it familiar, some beyond our imagination.
For mathematical dynamical systems (chaos theory) you'll find that you can tweak parameters. Some changes result in overall recognizable behavior, some changes result in completely different but still chaotic behavior, some changes result in boring, essentially empty solutions.
The universe is one big dynaimcal system; there's no reason to believe that if it is a function of certain chosen parameters, it is the only solution that would result in life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to wikipedia, Venus' atmosphere is about 3.5% nitrogen and its pressure is about 91 atmospheres. So, technically Venus doesn't have a lack of nitrogen (it appears to have about 3 times as much as Earth), it has an extreme abundance of carbon dioxide. Something interesting I didn't know is that apparently Venus has almost no plain oxygen. Mars, on the other hand, doesn't have much nitrogen. Perhaps that's at…
Venus has no plain oxygen because oxygen is reactive. It probably requires life to break apart CO2 and cast off the O2 into the atmosphere. Certainly it required life to do that on Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolite#cite_ref-PiP_15-1
AFAIK Nitrogen in the initial atmosphere rules this out.
Is there a succinct explanation of why some terrestial bodies in the solar system (Earth, Titan, Triton, Pluto) have mostly nitrogen atmospheres, but others (Mars, Venus) are mostly carbon dioxide instead? I mean, aside from specifics about each, what's the pattern that you would apply to an arbitrary planet?
For CO2, the pattern is temperature. Titan, Triton, Pluto are well below CO2's freezing point so it stays on the surface as ice instead of atmosphere. At these temperatures, nitrogen is the heaviest abundant molecule that remains gaseous, followed by methane. If you're warm enough for gaseous CO2, you have it. The only exception is Earth and that's because plant life absorbed it and emitted O2 instead.
For nitrogen, methane, argon, the pattern is mass. Only Venus and Earth have enough mass to hold on to those, compared to heavier CO2. Venus and Earth have similar quantities of those. Venus's excess of CO2 comes from temperature high enough to evaporate carbon and oxygen from rock compounds.
NO. If solar wind caused a gas layer to evaporate, Earth shouldn't have the atmosphere it does. This planet should be like those surrounding it. Those same solar winds/radiation would have made sure of that. The issue I have with this is the same issue I have with evolution. If conditions were not created to favor life why are we the only planet with any known life & which is perfectly suited to a variety of life? Do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The principle is: the universe has been fine-tuned in order to ensure that life arises. 1. The only forms of life that we know about are on a planet with plentiful water and carbon dioxide. 2. Planetary dynamics may favor the production of such planets by the evaporation of gas giants. Ergo, the rules of planetary dynamics appear to favor habitats for life as we know it. This appearance may be just an artifact of our…
I think you may be mixing up the causation. How probable our universe is, we'll never know (until we can see other universes). We do know that in this universe, life exists. Thus our universe has to be "fine-tuned" for us to exist because we do. As for the universe "favor"ing life, that doesn't really make sense either. I think it's safe to say the universe favors stars, gas giants, black holes but it's pretty hard t…
WAP: we're going to see selection bias in our universe because the preconditions for life must have been satisfied for us to exist within it.
SAP: all universes must satisfy the preconditions for life because cogito ergo sum -- the definition of existence requires life to perceive it.
I've probably sold SAP short because my own model of existence doesn't require perception, but clearly by this point we're well within the realm of philosophy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This could be a boon to scifi plots But can they outgrow the trope of every alien being a human-in-a-mask?
Not until CGI aliens with non-humanoid body plans become cheaper than masks on human actors.
Star Trek was never meant to be Sci-fi so much as soap opera in space.