Thread: The universe and it's order.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Obviously if there was no gravity there would be no plants, humans or any life you've seen. Evolution would have taken a completely different path.

So the question is not valid.

Exactly, hence the word adapt. Once again LB you're falling into the trap of seeing this as the only possible way, of believing things were designed for us. We adapted to our environment, its why things are the way they are. If it was a different situation, we'd of adapted differently.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Carosoul: We don't need plants, we need oxygen and nutrients

Plants provide oxygen and without plants the nuetrients that we need would be impossible to get because the plants and animals we get nutrients from would be dead. plus, from my understanding, the processes that keep earths atmosphere going depend, in part, on life. So my question is valid and so is Traveling's comment on how changing gravity would eliminate life.

The point remains.


We don't need plants themselves; just a source of the above listed supplies. I'm correct.

People need to look at this logically.

The main counter argument here at the moment is that there are many different ways of life existing. People are saying that if the rules were different, life would adapt to them. This is wrong.

What do you need for life? You need a system by which complex objects gradually become more complex. How is this achieved? Evolution. What do you need for evolution? Genetic code and the basic constituents of cells, along with some other things. Those are our axioms.

I'll show the matematical basis for the argument by elimination of various members of sets.

What would happen if there were no carbon atoms? There would be no life. Without it you can't have complex molcules. People thought silicon might be an alternative but it turns out that carbon is the only way.

What would happen if there was no hydrogen or oxygen? No life, water has amazing properties which are essential to life.

I can go on to eliminating the fundamental forces. No gravity? Definitely no life, Exobyte seems to have a fairly slack grasp upon evolution. Molecules would just radiate away from each other in straight lines, there is no chance for adaption without enough matter because there is no genetic material. In fact all of the fundamental forces are completely necessary.

You can say the same for many of the subatomic particles. If they didn't exist, there would be no possibility of life at all.

Yet there's no particular reason for any of these things existing. They're just properties of the fundamental constants of the universe.

Unless somebody is proposing that life can arise without genetic material in a universe with no intentions or control over its constituents, in which case they need to explain themselves.

You fail to realize that Carbon based life forms and water being essential to life are based on the laws of our universe right? Which could be entirely different in another situation? Its clear this concept has gone right over your head.

No, the maths has gone over yours.

There are many aspects of our universe completely crucial to life which when removed would give no life. Say there's a 0.5 chance of gravity emerging in a universe. And a 0.5 chance of the strong force. And a 0.5 chance of all the other factors which, had they not existed, would have caused life to not exist. Overall it's very unlikely that one would have all the necessary conditions for life.

And when I say water that could be misleading. What I should probably say is a molecule with a very high boiling point for its very low mass and with dipoles.

Again, all relative to our current universe and our current state. You're failing to see outside the box and see past the laws of this one state. Once again assuming that laws should they exist be the same in any other state.

Lets say this for a hypothetical example. Whos to say the boiling or freezing point of water would be the same in another universe governed by different physical laws, if water even existed in that universe? Lets say there was a different liquid, different than water, but more versatile that worked more effectively and produced "better" life?

Thats still in almost total relation to the laws of our universe, but it gets the point you're missing, across

Originally Posted by Xei

No, the maths has gone over yours.

There are many aspects of our universe completely crucial to life which when removed would give no life. Say there's a 0.5 chance of gravity emerging in a universe. And a 0.5 chance of the strong force. And a 0.5 chance of all the other factors which, had they not existed, would have caused life to not exist. Overall it's very unlikely that one would have all the necessary conditions for life.

Totally agree.


The fact that the universe is able to harbour life is extremly illogical. See below.


0 second to 10-43 second. Only God knows or can know what happened during this period of time? We know only that at least 9 dimensions of space existed as what is called singularity. All of the universe-to-be existed as a point of no volume. Time as we know it was created.

10-43 second, also known as Planck time. This is the point at which gravity, one of the four unified forces, became separate from the remaining three forces.

10-36 second. The strong nuclear force (the force that holds the nuclei of atoms together) separated from the other three unified forces.

10-36 to 10-32 second. Immediately following and triggered by the separation of the strong nuclear force, the universe expanded rapidly for this brief period of time.

10-32 to 10-5 second. The universe is filled with quarks, antiquarks, and electrons. The quarks and antiquarks combine and annihilate each other. Quarks are in excess of antiquarks by a ratio of 1,000,000,001 to

1,000,000,000. The remaining quarks will make up all the matter that exists in the universe.

10-12 second. The final two unified forces split from one another. Electromagnetism, which controls the attraction of negatively and positively charged particles, becomes separate from the weak nuclear force, which controls radioactive decay.

10-5 second. The universe cools to 1,000,000,000,000°K allowing quarks to combine to form protons and neutrons, the building blocks of atomic nuclei.
1 second to 3 minutes. The universe continues to cool, allowing protons and neutrons to combine to form the nuclei of future atoms.

10-32 second to 3000 years. Electromagnetic energy, produced during the annihilation of quarks and antiquarks, dominates the forces of gravity.
3000 years to present. Matter becomes the primary source of gravity. Matter begins to clump with the aid of large amounts of exotic or dark matter. This matter interacts weakly with electromagnetic energy, but is able to clump with itself through gravity, even during the domination of electromagnetic energy.

300,000 years. Continued expansion and cooling allow matter and electromagnetic energy to decouple. The nuclei of atoms are able to capture electrons to form complete atoms of hydrogen, helium and lithium.

200,000,000 years. Galaxy formation begins as matter continues to clump.

9,000,000,000 years. The solar system forms.

10,000,000,000 years. Life begins on earth.


D. N. Spergel, R. Bean, O. Doré, M. R. Nolta, C. L. Bennett, J. Dunkley, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, E. Komatsu, L. Page, H. V. Peiris, L. Verde, M. Halpern, R. S. Hill, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, N. Odegard, G. S. Tucker, J. L. Weiland, E. Wollack, E. L. Wright. 2007. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Three Year Results: Implications for Cosmology. Astrophysics arXiv:astro-ph/0603449v2.

Extreme fine tuning

strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements

ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above

ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above

expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed

entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form

mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements

velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support
if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support

age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed

initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit

density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material

average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun

decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life

12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life

ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above

decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry

ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of
many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all
stars into neutron stars or black holes

initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation

polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result

supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form

white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry

ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form

number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result

number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result

mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense

big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form

size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result

uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable

cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

Thats from a book called The Big Bang Refined by Fire by Hugh Ross.


Sorry for the long post but i thought it was good, you guys might enjoy it.

A simple thought experiment...

Suppose the fundamental constants WERE different. What would exist? Personally, I cannot even venture a guess - the implications would be vast and we barely understand how the constants affect our universe as it is. The point is, though, that SOMETHING would exist. Now, unless you claim to know the nature and mechanics of consciousness perfectly (which, by the way, no one does), you cannot reject the notion that some sort of conscious system could develop in this alternate universe. Perhaps it wouldn't have atoms held together properly, perhaps gravity wouldn't affect anything, but it could be a conscious system of nebulous plasma for all I care. Now, this is the important part - this being, were it aware of the state of its universe, would, using your logic, swear that the universe was created by a God. Why? Well, because if the universal constants were even a tiny bit different, all of these nebulous plasma beings would collapse into lumps of compact matter! Its universe is perfectly suited for it to exist!

Besides this egregious error of reasoning, I also take issue with the basic assumption that the universal constants are somehow probabilistic. WHY is gravity weaker than the other forces? No one knows. No one knows what it is or how it really works. For all we know, there is one single basic property of matter which results in the exact cosmological constants of our universe, and they couldn't possibly have any other value by definition.

Exo: Like I said, I'm aware of that. But we can do nothing more than to see how probable things are in our own reality, because other realities really are totally beyond our comprehension, and life isn't probable at all to the limited extent that we can determine.

I wasn't really focusing that much on boiling point anyway, there's enough planets to ensure that it's liquid somewhere. What is important is the way it separates out solvents and automatically constructs fluid mosaics, which would seem essential to life no matter how you think about it.

I think it is commonly accepted in science that life is improbable. That's why they came up with the anthropic principle, which is an idea that I disagree with.

Riot: That's great info there, thanks for that!

It would be good if there could be some scientific research into the precise ranges of those constants. I'm sure Hawking talked about the same sort of think in ABHOT, I'll look it up.

Gnome: Yes, that's something I've considered. However I've come to the conclusion that logically, the only way that an intelligent being could plausibly come about is by evolution. Of course to do it without bias you have to pretend evolution doesn't exist and arrive at the conclusion yourself. The universe doesn't have any motivation. So the only way a complex object would arise is if it causes more of those objects to be created, I think. And that leads you to evolution. Intelligence without purpose, as in the case of a sentient plasma cloud or something similar, seems unreasonable.

I don't think it matters if constants can 'vary' as such, though. You still find yourself with the question, 'why are the only possible constants suited to life against the odds?'.

Though, with the size of the universe, and the number of reactions that have occured to make the billions upon billions of stars and subsequent solar systems, I would say the possibility of even a fraction of those solar systems not harboring life is even more illogical.

Somewhere, all of those "if too small, if too little, if too large" situations that Riot Maker displayed are happening, and stars and planets are destroying each other and themselves, all the time. Over the billions of years of this happening an unfathomable amount of times, it is only logical that some time, some where, some number of solar systems will have generated the right conditions for life. I think that, to not expect it, given the number of planets that have been (and are still being) created, would be illogical, in itself.

Someone correct me if this statement is worng.

Nuculear force is the force that holds atoms together. The sun burns by fusing the hydrogen and the other higher elements together.When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogens is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8%

Indeed. Oneironaut, we're talking about the system as a whole; we're aware of the fact that in our particular universe, life is likely. If you didn't have genetic material, it wouldn't matter how many how many worlds you have. You wouldn't get life. As opposed to only getting life on a tiny fraction (but still billions, probably), you get life on zero. We're talking about the liklihood of life being likely, if that makes sense to you.

Originally Posted by Xei

We're talking about the liklihood of life being likely, if that makes sense to you.

Hmm. A bit. It's hazy, but I'm starting to understand where you're coming from, as opposed to what I was talking about.

...only a bit, though. I'm still kinda lol

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Evolution would have taken a completely different path.

So the question is not valid.

How could it have taken a diffrent path if it never even started because it lacked the essentials such as gravity? I know you've explained it but be paitient, I'm starting to get the big picture. Help me in the same way jesus helped the common, uneducated folk. Give me a parable or an analogy to help me grasp the concept. I know right, I'm stupid.

Does anyone have a response to my thought experiment?

I feel like it covers everything you're still saying here.

*edit* sorry xei, I missed your comment. Will respond as soon as Mythbusters is over =D

Nebulous plasma has no brain or functioning bodily system, and can have none without the constants, so how could it be conscious?

Originally Posted by Xei

So the only way a complex object would arise is if it causes more of those objects to be created, I think. And that leads you to evolution. Intelligence without purpose, as in the case of a sentient plasma cloud or something similar, seems unreasonable.

What do you mean, "without purpose"? These hypothetical plasma-beings could degenerate over time, and create new clouds somehow - I have no idea how things would work with different constants, but the point is that evolution would still occur given a self-replicating entity with genetic variation and environmental fluctuations.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't think it matters if constants can 'vary' as such, though. You still find yourself with the question, 'why are the only possible constants suited to life against the odds?'.

Uh... if they're the only possible ones, there are no odds.

Nebulous plasma has no brain or functioning bodily system, and can have none without the constants, so how could it be conscious?

Who says you need this for consciousness? You don't even know what consciousness is, what it arises from, or how it works. Also, the plasma was just an example. Whatever exists in this hypothetical other universe could somehow develop consciousness, that's the point.

I'm not just talking about gravity on a cosmic scale, between large bodies of matter, I'm talking about gravity that binds objects on an atomic scale.

Even energy follows some sort of chaotic gravitational pattern. So again, without gravity:

Let me ask you this gnome, if Life has no requirements then why isn't there life on every planet?

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

Let me ask you this gnome, if Life has no requirements then why isn't there life on every planet?

He didn't say life has no requirements. Read what he said again.

Originally Posted by Lucid_boy

How could it have taken a diffrent path if it never even started because it lacked the essentials such as gravity? I know you've explained it but be paitient, I'm starting to get the big picture. Help me in the same way jesus helped the common, uneducated folk. Give me a parable or an analogy to help me grasp the concept. I know right, I'm stupid.

When I said a different path it also included the possibility of no path at all, but not necessarily. There's no way for us to experiment what would happen without gravity so we can't know what kind of life, if any, would occur. We don't even know why the laws exist, but that's no excuse to say "god did it".

For all we know the constant values may have approached the ones we have so some sort of equilibrium could happen. Or maybe it was just arbitrary and there could be a million different possible combination of values and/or other unimaginable laws which in turn would produce unimaginable types of "life".

I think my point still stands; if the universe had been any other way, we wouldn't be here to witness it and hence it wouldn't exist in our comprehension, because this is the state of the universe we are in, it is the only one we can concieve because it is the only one we can exist in; so basically there is NO CHANCE at all of the universe being different at all fundamentally, because if it was it wouldn't be interpreted by us and hence from our subjective perspective [which is what we are all working from] it cannot be any other way than how it is; with life able to grow.

Indeed, that's the anthropic principle. Unfortunately I think it's a bit rubbish, as do many other scientists.

As far as I can tell, the anthropic principle does nothing to explain why the universe is fine tuned to life. Basically it's highly likely that there will be no perception ever, but highly unlikely that there will ever be any perception ever. Yet it is not a mainstream idea that there are multiple universes with different constants, so adopting the anthropic principle explains nothing as far as I can tell.

Uh... if they're the only possible ones, there are no odds.

That just seems like a play on words to me. In reality, every single probabalistic event has a probability of 1 for one outcome and of 0 for all the others. If you were to drop a deck of cards from the top of the skyscraper and they all landed back together in the correct order on the ground, you could say that due to the unchanging laws of our universe and determinism, that was always going to happen. However it's something that clearly requires explanation.

What do you mean, "without purpose"? These hypothetical plasma-beings could degenerate over time, and create new clouds somehow - I have no idea how things would work with different constants, but the point is that evolution would still occur given a self-replicating entity with genetic variation and environmental fluctuations.

Well, the only plausible way I can think of that intelligence could arise was if there was some sort of system by which the complexity of an object increases over time. Intelligence comes about because it has a purpose, which is to survive, and I think evolution is the only way such a thing could concievably happen.

I'm talking about gravity that binds objects on an atomic scale.

Quantum gravity? Wow, I'd get writing to Nature right now if I were you.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

When I said a different path it also included the possibility of no path at all, but not necessarily. There's no way for us to experiment what would happen without gravity so we can't know what kind of life, if any, would occur. We don't even know why the laws exist, but that's no excuse to say "god did it".

For all we know the constant values may have approached the ones we have so some sort of equilibrium could happen. Or maybe it was just arbitrary and there could be a million different possible combination of values and/or other unimaginable laws which in turn would produce unimaginable types of "life".

Finally, thank you, I just figured it out. The whole millions of possible combinations things just clicked it in to place for me. I mulled this over and had two seperate chunks of though floating around, this connects them. I get it now and see that you and Gnome are in fact correct.