Is the existence of life just a series of improbable accidents?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dook
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether the existence of life is merely a series of improbable accidents. Participants explore the implications of chance events in the formation of life, the role of natural selection, and the philosophical aspects of probability in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Philosophical inquiry
  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the precise nature of atoms and other chance occurrences in the universe make it statistically improbable for life to exist by chance alone.
  • Others argue that the question is philosophical rather than scientific and that it has been debated extensively before.
  • A participant contends that the cumulative process of individual chance events leading to life was not purely random but directed by natural selection, referencing Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" to support this view.
  • Another participant challenges the validity of asserting probabilities a-posteriori, arguing that one cannot claim that specific outcomes indicate a lack of randomness without considering the context of those outcomes.
  • Some express skepticism about the concept of impossibility, suggesting that perceptions of chance and probability are subjective and may not reflect objective reality.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the role of chance in the existence of life, with no consensus reached on whether life is a result of improbable accidents or if natural selection plays a significant role in this process.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of applying mathematical probability to historical events and the subjective nature of interpreting chance occurrences.

Dook
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
I've heard that the nature of an atom is extremely precise, just .0000001 difference and stability becomes impossible.

I'm sure there are other chance happenings in the universe that defy the odds.

When all of these accidents are looked at statistically doesn't it seem impossible for life to exist by chance alone?
 
Space news on Phys.org
This is really a philosophical question and not one of physics. This has already been discussed and debated many times.
 
Dook said:
I've heard that the nature of an atom is extremely precise, just .0000001 difference and stability becomes impossible. I'm sure there are other chance happenings in the universe that defy the odds. When all of these accidents are looked at statistically doesn't it seem impossible for life to exist by chance alone?
Only if you look at all of the accidents as a "set", and then attempt (falsely) to apply the mathematics of sets to the odds (probability) of each individual step-by-step event. What you must understand is that the cumulative process of individual "chance" events that resulted in the formation of life on Earth was not holistically a chance event, but directed by "nonrandom" reproduction of genotypes (this is why Charles Darwin made a name for himself--he gave a name to this process--he called it "natural selection"). May I suggest a book for you to read that deals with this subject of chance events as relates to formation of life on earth--The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins, 1987.
 
Didn't we just have this argument? You cannot assert probabilities "a-posteriori". I cannot, for example, pick a number out of 10000, get the number "36347" and claim "Aha! If my choice were random, the probability of getting that particular number would be only 1/10000 so obviously my pick was not random. It was clearly guided by some 'intelligent design'!"

If certain things had not happened the way they did, we would not be here to ask the question. You are welcome to use the fact that we are here to ask to question to assert that things did happen that way but you cannot talk about a probability for what did happen.


(This reminds me of the standard "fortune teller" strategy for success- predict that a large number of things are going to happen. Those that don't happen you don't mention- those that do, you say "See, what did I tell you!")
 
HallsofIvy said:
Didn't we just have this argument? You cannot assert probabilities "a-posteriori". I cannot, for example, pick a number out of 10000, get the number "36347" and claim "Aha! If my choice were random, the probability of getting that particular number would be only 1/10000 so obviously my pick was not random.
It seems to me that the chance of picking the number thirtysix thousand threehundred-fortyseven out of ten thousand is ZERO.
 
Anything could be considered impossible or simply everyday routine. It is mostly tied up to our subjective perception of things. Anyways the following thread may help understand better:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=149592
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
Replies
147
Views
10K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
8K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
8K