Nov 19, 2023 06:48 PM
(This post was last modified: Nov 19, 2023 06:48 PM by C C.)
Is the Universe fine-tuned for life? Here are 3 answers
https://bigthink.com/13-8/3-answers-univ...uned-life/
INTRO: If you follow the writings and ideas of many theoretical physicists and scientific magazines and publications, you surely have come across a statement that goes somewhat like this: “The Universe is fine-tuned for life. If you look at the constants of nature, like the mass of the electron and the quarks, the strength of the gravitational or strong nuclear force, and many other constants that physicists use to describe natural phenomena, you realize that their values are such that, if tweaked by even a tiny bit, life in the Universe wouldn’t be possible. So, the universe, or the constants of nature, must be fine-tuned for life to be here.”
It is common to hear that we live in a “Goldilocks Universe,” perfectly tuned for life to exist. Once you frame the story this way, there are three possibilities: (1) It’s just an accident — that is, the Universe is what it is, and we are the ones who tell the story by measuring the constants of nature; (2) there is a “fine-tuner,” and what you call this “fine-tuner” is up to you, be it God or panpsychism (see my conversation last week with philosopher Philip Goff), and the Universe’s purpose is to have intelligent life; or (3) we live in a multiverse, and our Universe just happens to be the one where things work out for life to exist. In other words, if you don’t want God, you had better embrace the multiverse.
Let’s take a closer look at each of these three possibilities...
[...] So, is the Universe fine-tuned or not for life? Given that we have no evidence of life elsewhere, and that it is conceptually impossible in physics to calculate the constants of nature from “first principles” without other in-built assumptions, it seems that answers to the fine-tuning problem that call either for a fine-tuner or the multiverse are trying to add a dimension to physics that doesn’t belong there. Maybe we could call it astrotheology — which would be fine with me, but it’s not really physics as we know it... (MORE - missing details)
Jurassic Park: why we’re still struggling to realise it 30 years on
https://theconversation.com/jurassic-par...-on-215278
INTRO: Jurassic Park is arguably the ultimate Hollywood blockbuster. Aside from the appeal of human-chomping dinosaurs, tense action sequences and ground-breaking cinematography, its release in 1993 was a movies-meet-science milestone.
As global audiences were soaking up the gory action, the premise of the movie - extracting DNA from fossil insects preserved in amber to resurrect dinosaurs - was given the credibility of publication by several high-profile studies on fossil amber. The authors recovered ancient DNA from amber, and even revived amber-hosted bacteria. The world seemed primed for a real-life Jurassic Park.
But since then, the science has taken many twists and turns. An increasing number of palaeontologists are reporting evidence of DNA and proteins, which also give genetic information, in fossils. These chemical traces could provide unprecedented insights into ancient life and evolution. But such reports are the source of ongoing debate and controversy among scientists. Our recent study, published in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution, offers new insight...
[...] although scientists have made a lot of progress, the prospect remains in the realm of science fiction. All data from fossils and experiments to date suggests that DNA is simply unlikely to survive for tens of millions of years. ... In the future, these studies may challenge what we think we know about how long molecules can survive, and may even reshape our understanding of the evolution of life on Earth. (MORE - details)
COVERED: Ancient DNA ..... Ancient proteins ..... A way forward ..... Real-life Jurassic Park – science fact or fiction?
https://bigthink.com/13-8/3-answers-univ...uned-life/
INTRO: If you follow the writings and ideas of many theoretical physicists and scientific magazines and publications, you surely have come across a statement that goes somewhat like this: “The Universe is fine-tuned for life. If you look at the constants of nature, like the mass of the electron and the quarks, the strength of the gravitational or strong nuclear force, and many other constants that physicists use to describe natural phenomena, you realize that their values are such that, if tweaked by even a tiny bit, life in the Universe wouldn’t be possible. So, the universe, or the constants of nature, must be fine-tuned for life to be here.”
It is common to hear that we live in a “Goldilocks Universe,” perfectly tuned for life to exist. Once you frame the story this way, there are three possibilities: (1) It’s just an accident — that is, the Universe is what it is, and we are the ones who tell the story by measuring the constants of nature; (2) there is a “fine-tuner,” and what you call this “fine-tuner” is up to you, be it God or panpsychism (see my conversation last week with philosopher Philip Goff), and the Universe’s purpose is to have intelligent life; or (3) we live in a multiverse, and our Universe just happens to be the one where things work out for life to exist. In other words, if you don’t want God, you had better embrace the multiverse.
Let’s take a closer look at each of these three possibilities...
[...] So, is the Universe fine-tuned or not for life? Given that we have no evidence of life elsewhere, and that it is conceptually impossible in physics to calculate the constants of nature from “first principles” without other in-built assumptions, it seems that answers to the fine-tuning problem that call either for a fine-tuner or the multiverse are trying to add a dimension to physics that doesn’t belong there. Maybe we could call it astrotheology — which would be fine with me, but it’s not really physics as we know it... (MORE - missing details)
Jurassic Park: why we’re still struggling to realise it 30 years on
https://theconversation.com/jurassic-par...-on-215278
INTRO: Jurassic Park is arguably the ultimate Hollywood blockbuster. Aside from the appeal of human-chomping dinosaurs, tense action sequences and ground-breaking cinematography, its release in 1993 was a movies-meet-science milestone.
As global audiences were soaking up the gory action, the premise of the movie - extracting DNA from fossil insects preserved in amber to resurrect dinosaurs - was given the credibility of publication by several high-profile studies on fossil amber. The authors recovered ancient DNA from amber, and even revived amber-hosted bacteria. The world seemed primed for a real-life Jurassic Park.
But since then, the science has taken many twists and turns. An increasing number of palaeontologists are reporting evidence of DNA and proteins, which also give genetic information, in fossils. These chemical traces could provide unprecedented insights into ancient life and evolution. But such reports are the source of ongoing debate and controversy among scientists. Our recent study, published in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution, offers new insight...
[...] although scientists have made a lot of progress, the prospect remains in the realm of science fiction. All data from fossils and experiments to date suggests that DNA is simply unlikely to survive for tens of millions of years. ... In the future, these studies may challenge what we think we know about how long molecules can survive, and may even reshape our understanding of the evolution of life on Earth. (MORE - details)
COVERED: Ancient DNA ..... Ancient proteins ..... A way forward ..... Real-life Jurassic Park – science fact or fiction?
