What is the role of life in the universe?

[Vast]

I’m in the process of reading a book by Paul Davies called The Origin of Life, and in it, it seems apparent that life began quite suddenly after the Earth was created. 3.5 billion years ago or maybe even earlier. This to me seems to indicate a couple of extraordinary things about life. First is that not only doesn’t a planet need hospitable conditions for life to originate, but also alongside the evolving universe, life comes into existence shortly after the big bang. We could however, say that due to the enormous numbers of stars and potential planets existing in the universe there’s bound to be many planets harboring life, or people could just say that life is a highly improbable outcome.

But the view that life is a highly improbable outcome seems almost ridiculous, and if we still adopt the view that it is a rare event, we’re faced with the realization that it was a rare event that happened relatively shortly after the beginning of the universe.

If on the other hand we find that life is a crucial part of the universe, does this say anything about the universe itself being fine-tuned for life? And if so what role does life play in the universe?

Freeman Dyson (Dyson, 1988): “there are good scientific reasons for taking seriously the possibility, that life and intelligence can succeed in molding the universe … to their own purposes…It appears to me, that the tendency of mind to infiltrate and control matter is a law of nature.”

 

[Mike2]

If on the other hand we find that life is a crucial part of the universe, does this say anything about the universe itself being fine-tuned for life? And if so what role does life play in the universe?

As the universe expands we find more complex structure emerging, first stars and galaxies, planets and moons, then more and more complicated forms of life on earth? It seems curious that life on Earth arose about the same time that the universe accelerates in its expansion.

It's not that these very complex structures are impossible to form, but it is only improbable, and that may be the point. Even in quantum mechanics there is a superposition of alternatives from which only one possibility is chosen in a given measurement. And that choice is less probable than the whole.

What I think is going on is the effect of a conservation of information or entropy in the universe. There is some uncertainty in our measurement and observations of anything in the universe. But above all, what is absolutely certain is that there does exist a universe. There is no question about that, ever. This is true at all times.

Information theory tells us that entropy is related to information through probabilities, that the information content of an absolute certainty is zero, and more information is contained in the more improbable events. We learn nothing from a choice of an absolute given. There's no surprise in learning it. But if some highly unlikely event takes place, we sit up and take notice.

So if the information content of the universe as a whole must be conserved at zero, then there must be something in the universe to balance all the effects of entropy in the universe. If the expansion itself of the universe is seen as an increase in entropy, then there must exist forces to reduce entropy. And life may be that counter-balance to entropy in the universe. Our purpose in life may be to perfect form and structure, at least that seems to be how we define progress.

But how would you prove that the universe is constructed by principles that balance entropy? If the certainty that the universe exists is 100% even when the universe was so small that the first quantum mechanical situation arose, then you know that conservation of information is active in the principles of quantum mechanics. When the perfect symmetry of the universe broke and alternatives to that symmetry became possible, you know that the structures that arose must have represented a decrease in entropy (= increase in information) that offset the entropy of so many possible alternatives.

One encouragement in this perspective is that recently we are told that even black holes conserve information. And I have read that information is conserved for all horizons, even the cosmological event horizon at the edge of our observable universe. It seems that at the edge of our view of the universe, even there objects are receding so fast that we observe redshifts increasing and processes slowing down in what is called a big freeze. So I wonder if this all contributes to a reduction of entropy or a conservation of information in the rest of the universe.

Yet, one of the questions I have is how is the universe as a whole defined for the purposes of information conservation. Is information conserved for everything that exist at this instance of time? Or is information conserved for everything in our light-cone, for everything we observe?

 

[marcus]

...
Freeman Dyson (Dyson, 1988): “there are good scientific reasons for taking seriously the possibility, that life and intelligence can succeed in molding the universe … to their own purposes…It appears to me, that the tendency of mind to infiltrate and control matter is a law of nature.”

Please give us the title of the book or article which you refer to as
"Dyson, 1988"

It will be in the bibliography of Davies book, which you are in the process of reading, or so I would expect.

I would urge you to read something about CNS (cosmic natural selection) for balance.

Try "Scientific Alternatives to the Anthropic Principle" by Smolin

the universe may be fine-tuned to produce massive black holes----which result in offspring universes with approximately the same physical constants----and only coincidentally to be hospitable to life.

the smolin multiverse theory is unusual in that it generates readily testable predictions-----one can check it by common sorts of astronomical observations

Indeed maybe it has already been ruled out----we are waiting to hear more on that.


=============

BTW this is a side issue but the first generation of stars after the big bang were metal-poor
many of the familiar chemical elements had not been synthesized in significant amounts

it takes several generations of stars, forming and exploding or blowing off their outer layers, to build up an interstellar medius rich in heavier elements like nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, silicon, calcium etc
so that rocky planets can condense and harbor complex chemistry

early stars, if they had planets, would have had planets consisting mostly of hydrogen and helium, plus a little lithium-----not very promising.


the big bang (beginning of the current expansion phase of universe) is estimated at 13.7 billion yrs ago.

As far as we know life is only about 3 billion yrs. old.
Life did not come into existence, as far as we can tell, soon after the big bang.

It may have. But according to the little evidence we have it took a long long time after big bang for life to appear.

Also the evidence on Earth suggests that life stayed SINGLE CELL for most of that time. Like for 2 billion years it just sat around and did not get the idea to but cell and cell together.

Multicell life only goes back to (approx, roughly) 0.6 million yrs.

So if some intelligences fine-tuned the U to promote multicell life they seem to have botched the job. they were incompetent bunglers.
they produced something way mondo sub-optimal.

By contrast the U seems very well tuned to produce black holes.
black holes have been observed at high redshift, in other words very far back in time. this is in line with the CNS hypothesis. Moreover, black holes are demonstrably plentiful---most galaxies are now believed to have one or more central ones, the milkyway has two. And lots of stellarsize ones have been detected.

Having an ample periodic table of stable elements, capable of rich chemistry, may be a SIDE EFFECT of universes evolving in ways favoring the formation of black holes---this is explained, for instance, in the article cited earlier.

I think Freeman Dyson may have changed his tune since the 1980s. He is still writing but I haven't heard anything more about the role of intelligence in cosmology-----the idea was a favorite of his in the 1970s and you cite a 1980s reference---so he may think differently now. Any recent source?

 

[Vast]

Please give us the title of the book or article which you refer to as
"Dyson, 1988"

It will be in the bibliography of Davies book, which you are in the process of reading, or so I would expect.

I would urge you to read something about CNS (cosmic natural selection) for balance.

Try "Scientific Alternatives to the Anthropic Principle" by Smolin

the universe may be fine-tuned to produce massive black holes----which result in offspring universes with approximately the same physical constants----and only coincidentally to be hospitable to life.

the smolin multiverse theory is unusual in that it generates readily testable predictions-----one can check it by common sorts of astronomical observations

Indeed maybe it has already been ruled out----we are waiting to hear more on that.

http://astro.elte.hu/~bab/Role_Life_Univp.htm

This is the article, but I think it’s in one of his books Imagined Worlds or Disturbing the Universe, whichever he wrote back in 1988.

Thanks for the reading advice, I’ve already taken a look at Smolin paper, but I was under the impression that black hole’s producing universes had been ruled out early this year.

 

[Garth]

Try "Scientific Alternatives to the Anthropic Principle" by Smolin

the universe may be fine-tuned to produce massive black holes----which result in offspring universes with approximately the same physical constants----and only coincidentally to be hospitable to life.

Is the Smolin model an alternative to the Anthropic Principle and its coincidences? The theory depends on the physical constants that maximise the number of black holes also being propitious for life.
But wouldn't that be rather a coincidence?

Garth

 

[QuantumTheory]

Does anyone here consider the possibility of creationism?

Just curious. I don't want to start a fight, but it could be a posbility?

We as humans, naturally want to think there is a heaven.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Does anyone here consider the possibility of creationism?

Just curious. I don't want to start a fight, but it could be a posbility?

We as humans, naturally want to think there is a heaven.

Scientists assert about creationism that it is not a science, because (a) it assumes its conclusion, and (b) it does absolutely no real research. Whether you take the "young earth" kind with literal creation in 4000 BC or so and Noah's flood and all, or the "old Earth version, with no big bang, and in either case no evolution of species, it's false, has been falsified by genuine science, and cannot be used to erect a scientific alternative to standard cosmology and geology, let alone evolution.

Maybe you need a heaven, having perhaps been brought up with the idea, but many others have no need for it. Marcus, up on the Strings, Branes & LQG forum, just quoted Laplace's great line: asked by a bishop why he had not mentioned god in his great book on celestial mechanics Laplace replied "I found I had no need for that hypothesis." even so for heaven, to many.

 

[NeutronStar]

As far as we know life is only about 3 billion yrs. old. Life did not come into existence, as far as we can tell, soon after the big bang.

Absolutely.

But the view that life is a highly improbable outcome seems almost ridiculous, and if we still adopt the view that it is a rare event, we’re faced with the realization that it was a rare event that happened relatively shortly after the beginning of the universe.

So where did this idea come from?

Not only did it not happen soon. But it didn't even happen in a lot of places as far as we can tell.

So there wasn't just lot of time for this improbably event to have occurred, but it also had billions upon billions of opportunities to occur even within our own galaxy.

Yet to the best of our knowledge it has only occurred once in all of those opportunities. (but we really have no clue whether it occurs more often or not)

There may yet be other life forms right here in our own solar system that we simple haven't discovered yet. The idea that life may have existed on Mars as primitive microbes hasn't been completely ruled out. We'll never know whether life might have started on Venus at some time in the past. There's still possibilities that life might yet exist on the moons of Jupiter or Saturn. We just don't know.

Should we ever happen to actually find an independent life form in our own solar system all of a sudden we'd pretty much have to conclude that it isn't an improbably event at all. Life might exists are just about every observable stars system around us. We can't even really tell whether small planets might exist. Whether such planets might contain life is totally beyond our ability to observe.

We simply don't know how probably or improbable life might be. Once a solar system has formed and all of the chemical components are in place life might arise fairly easily at that point. We just don't know.

Even when life does evolve, how probable is it to become technological? The dinosaurs existed for something like 65 millions years with no evidence that they were becoming technological in any way.

Do you realize that humans have only been seriously technological in the past couple hundred years! Imagine how technological we will become should we happen to survive for even 1000 years (as a technological species). Current human behavior doesn't look promising for such longevity though. Our technology is driven mainly by greed and financial goals. We are a throw-away wasteful polluting selfish species. Some would argue whether humans actually qualify as "intelligent" lifeforms.

 

[Garth]

Does anyone here consider the possibility of creationism?

Just curious. I don't want to start a fight, but it could be a posbility?

We as humans, naturally want to think there is a heaven.

I think not "wanting to starting a fight" is probably being a bit too optimistic!

Nevertheless, for my pennyworth - it depends on what you mean by 'creationism'. The term is normally hijacked by the "Genesis 1 is literally true, - with a 6 x 24 hour day creation - about 6 to 10,000 years ago" brigade.

However, all down the ages right up to the present day there has also been a number of people who answered the question, "How do you explain it all?" by saying, "God".

Such answer is by definition a statement of faith, but equally the answer "There is no such God" is also a statement of faith. The matter cannot be resolved by scientific proof one way or the other.
As I have posted before on these forums:

I find there are four questions that science raises that point beyond science, from physics to metaphysics.
The questions are:
1. Why does the universe bother to exist? As Stephen Hawking has said, “Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it cannot answer the question: Why does the universe bother to exist?” He went on to ask, when contemplating the Theory of Everything, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”
2. Why is the universe so fruitful, that is propitious for life? The Anthropic question, “The world is as it is because we are” (S.H.) but why?
3. Why can we solve the mysteries of the universe by scribbling on the backs of old envelopes in an armchair?” (As Einstein is said to have done.) “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.” (A.E.)
4. How is that atoms, after bouncing around together for billions of years in a Newtonian way, should produce life and a consciousness capable of asking such awkward questions?

These questions may be given a deistic, theistic or atheist answer; each requires a stance of faith, either in the existence of God or the non-existence of God. The existential choice is yours…

Garth

 

[marcus]

http://astro.elte.hu/~bab/Role_Life_Univp.htm

This is the article, but I think it’s in one of his books Imagined Worlds or Disturbing the Universe, whichever he wrote back in 1988.

Thanks for the reading advice, I’ve already taken a look at Smolin paper, but I was under the impression that black hole’s producing universes had been ruled out early this year.

Thanks. I looked in the selection you linked to
and found the reference to Dyson
Dyson, F. 1988, Infinite in all Directions, Harper, New York, N.Y.

By coincidence, I have Dyson's "Disturbing the Universe" book 1979.
I couldn't find anything like this in it---in a quick look.

But I distinctly recall a Scientific American article by Dyson from the 1970s---a special issue on Energy---one of the September specials.
Or earlier than 1970s. And he definitely said we probably will not understand cosmology until we have a better idea of the role of intelligence in it. The suggestion was that accidentally evolved lifeforms like us may have tinkered with the fundamental constants. May even have overseen the production of the universe as we know it. May have found ways to outwit collapse or chill----fire and ice----if threatened by them.

exciting stories, good stimulus for speculation---and Dyson is good at that.

Your link was interesting as well.

I see it discussed Smolin CNS. And critically!

that is interesting too, and if you find a reference for CNS being refuted earlier this year please post it! I am not convinced that it has been refuted with certainty and would like to know of any evidence. I still feel that the Fat Lady has not sung yet, for CNS.

 

[Garth]

Maybe you need a heaven, having perhaps been brought up with the idea, but many others have no need for it. Marcus, up on the Strings, Branes & LQG forum, just quoted Laplace's great line: asked by a bishop why he had not mentioned god in his great book on celestial mechanics Laplace replied "I found I had no need for that hypothesis." even so for heaven, to many.

Although I agree with everything you say about 6-day creationism, about that quote:
Actually it was the Emperor Napoleon who asked Laplace that question. Those who quote it as a knock down argument for atheism ought to be aware that Laplace was a practicing Catholic all his life.
What he had just explained to Napoleon was his theory of the stability of the solar system and planetary orbits. Newton had been aware that the perturbations of other planets might push the Earth off its normal orbit and consequently made life impossible. He was prepared for God to "stick his finger in" and push the Earth back onto its correct orbit, as one might correct an old clock. Laplace's research had convinced him that this was not necessary as the perturbations 'evened out' over time (excuse my hand waving explanation for his detailed mathematical analysis!). And so he did not need to bring God into it.
Actually you could (I would) argue that if God had had to intervene in the Creation as Newton had surmised then that Creation would not be perfect but like a badly built clock that constantly needed correction.

Garth

 

[meteor]

that is interesting too, and if you find a reference for CNS being refuted earlier this year please post it!

L.Susskind is against Smolin's theory. He gives his reasonings in this paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0407266
he denies the validity of CNS in this excerpt:
"The implication (Susskind gives a reference of a paper of Maldacena here) is that if there is any kind of universe creation in the interior of the black hole, the
quantum state of the offspring is completely unique and can have no memory of the initial
state. That would preclude the kind of slow mutation rate envisioned by Smolin."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respect to the origin of life, I remember that was fascinated 5 years ago more or less about how life and intelligence can emerge from nothing, just like magic. i remember that i went to my local library (I hadn't internet in that epoch) and picked a book of Oparin. it was too technical for me, but it seems that that book is a classic. there was a lot of chemistry in the book, one of the things that I remember principally is his hypothesis about life emerging from structures called coacervates. It seemed very strange that consciousness and intelligence and mind could emerge only because some chemical processes, but i accepted it. My vision of it has changed over the years, now I think that life is a common characteristic of all matter (though in elementary particles is very poorly developed) and that this quality of intelligence enhances as there is an increasing of the complexity of the system (for example in the formation of the brain). It seems to me that the aparition of intelligence was predestined even after the first seconds after Big Bang, I'm sure that there's some obscure law guiding the process of acquisition of higher levels of intelligence and sentience, just we haven't discovered it yet that law

 

[Chronos]

if you find a reference for CNS being refuted earlier this year please post it! I am not convinced that it has been refuted with certainty and would like to know of any evidence. I still feel that the Fat Lady has not sung yet, for CNS.

Judging by some fairly recent correspondence, Dr. Smolin has not yet thrown in the towel on CNS.

 

[selfAdjoint]

L.Susskind is against Smolin's theory. He gives his reasonings in this paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0407266
he denies the validity of CNS in this excerpt:
"The implication (Susskind gives a reference of a paper of Maldacena here) is that if there is any kind of universe creation in the interior of the black hole, the
quantum state of the offspring is completely unique and can have no memory of the initial
state. That would preclude the kind of slow mutation rate envisioned by Smolin."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respect to the origin of life, I remember that was fascinated 5 years ago more or less about how life and intelligence can emerge from nothing, just like magic. i remember that i went to my local library (I hadn't internet in that epoch) and picked a book of Oparin. it was too technical for me, but it seems that that book is a classic. there was a lot of chemistry in the book, one of the things that I remember principally is his hypothesis about life emerging from structures called coacervates. It seemed very strange that consciousness and intelligence and mind could emerge only because some chemical processes, but i accepted it. My vision of it has changed over the years, now I think that life is a common characteristic of all matter (though in elementary particles is very poorly developed) and that this quality of intelligence enhances as there is an increasing of the complexity of the system (for example in the formation of the brain). It seems to me that the aparition of intelligence was predestined even after the first seconds after Big Bang, I'm sure that there's some obscure law guiding the process of acquisition of higher levels of intelligence and sentience, just we haven't discovered it yet that law

Well, I hope you weren't converted to panbiosis by Oparin! He wrote back in the thirtiies and I don't think his coacervates are still considered part of the early history of life. Rather than trying to mimic cell walls, reseachers are now thinking of two-base RNA's and self-catilyzing molecules. To me panbiosis is just a form of giving up on chemistry, which is still under way to finish the job of explaining life.

 

[marcus]

L.Susskind is against Smolin's theory. He gives his reasonings in this paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0407266
he denies the validity of CNS in this excerpt:
"The implication (Susskind gives a reference of a paper of Maldacena here) is that if there is any kind of universe creation in the interior of the black hole, the
quantum state of the offspring is completely unique and can have no memory of the initial
state. That would preclude the kind of slow mutation rate envisioned by Smolin."

meteor I think what susskind said was not carefully reasoned
but seemed more like a hasty innuendo. it does not constitute an solid objection to CNS.

I was wondering if you brought it up seriously or humorously.

here is the full quote and the reference [14] to Horowitz Maldacena paper:

---quote---
Finally, we have learned some things about black holes over the last decade that even Stephen Hawking agrees with [13]. Black holes do not lose information. The implication [14] is that if there is any kind of universe creation in the interior of the black hole, the quantum state of the offspring is completely unique and can have no memory of the initial state. That would preclude the kind of slow mutation rate envisioned by Smolin.

[14] G. T. Horowitz and J. Maldacena, The black hole final state,” JHEP 0402, 008 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0310281].
---end quote---

the paper he cites by Horowitz Maldacena is a proposal, not a proven result.
---quote hep-th/0310281 abstract---
We propose that in quantum gravity one needs to impose a final state boundary condition at black hole singularities. This resolves the apparent contradiction between string theory and semiclassical arguments over whether black hole evaporation is unitary.
---end quote---

They apparently assume there is a singularity. A boundary. It is just the LQG point that spacetime does not end, where there used to be the classical singularity. One does not need to impose a final state (as Horo and Malda believe necessary.)
Their paper is speculative, they admit, and takes string theory (?) as point of departure

---quote from Horo and Malda conclusions---
We have suggested a possible resolution of the apparent contradiction between string theory and semiclassical arguments over whether black hole evaporation is unitary. By imposing a final state boundary condition at the black hole singularity, one circumvents the usual causality problem and obtains unitary evolution even in a semiclassical treatment. The ideas in this paper are completely consistent with the ideas of Hartle and Hawking about a unique wavefunction for the universe [11]. It is precisely this uniqueness that saves the day in black hole evaporation. Notice that a unique initial quantum state does not imply a unique macroscopic state, we could have a superposition of different macrocopically distinct universes. Our proposal is clearly very speculative, and we have not given any constructive method for computing the black hole final state. In principle, this can be deduced from a precise calculation of the evolution |psi>_M arrow |psi>_out

 

[marcus]

L.Susskind is against Smolin's theory. He gives his reasonings in this paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0407266
he denies the validity of CNS in this excerpt:
"The implication (Susskind gives a reference of a paper of Maldacena here) is that if there is any kind of universe creation in the interior of the black hole, the
quantum state of the offspring is completely unique and can have no memory of the initial
state. That would preclude the kind of slow mutation rate envisioned by Smolin."

meteor I think what susskind said was not carefully reasoned
but instead seems more like hasty innuendo. I do not think it comes to grips with CNS or constitutes a solid objection.

I was wondering if you brought it up seriously or humorously.

here is the full quote and the reference [14] to Horowitz Maldacena paper:

---quote---
Finally, we have learned some things about black holes over the last decade that even Stephen Hawking agrees with [13]. Black holes do not lose information. The implication [14] is that if there is any kind of universe creation in the interior of the black hole, the quantum state of the offspring is completely unique and can have no memory of the initial state. That would preclude the kind of slow mutation rate envisioned by Smolin.

[14] G. T. Horowitz and J. Maldacena, The black hole final state,” JHEP 0402, 008 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0310281].
---end quote---

the paper he cites by Horowitz Maldacena is a proposal, not a proven result.
---quote hep-th/0310281 abstract---
We propose that in quantum gravity one needs to impose a final state boundary condition at black hole singularities. This resolves the apparent contradiction between string theory and semiclassical arguments over whether black hole evaporation is unitary.
---end quote---

They apparently assume there is a singularity. A boundary. It is just the LQG point that spacetime does not end, where there used to be the classical singularity. One does not need to impose a final state (as Horo and Malda believe necessary.)
Their paper is speculative, they admit, and takes string theory (?) as point of departure

---quote from Horo and Malda conclusions---
We have suggested a possible resolution of the apparent contradiction between string theory and semiclassical arguments over whether black hole evaporation is unitary. By imposing a final state boundary condition at the black hole singularity, one circumvents the usual causality problem and obtains unitary evolution even in a semiclassical treatment. The ideas in this paper are completely consistent with the ideas of Hartle and Hawking about a unique wavefunction for the universe [11]. It is precisely this uniqueness that saves the day in black hole evaporation. Notice that a unique initial quantum state does not imply a unique macroscopic state, we could have a superposition of different macrocopically distinct universes. Our proposal is clearly very speculative, and we have not given any constructive method for computing the black hole final state. In principle, this can be deduced from a precise calculation of the evolution |psi>_M arrow |psi>_out. Hopefully, we will soon discover some techniques to compute it!
---end quote---

Susskind throwing this up as an objection does not encourage me to put much weight on his other arguments. Perhaps you see it differently.
(unless you were just kidding.)

 

[Vast]

Absolutely.


So where did this idea come from?

Not only did it not happen soon. But it didn't even happen in a lot of places as far as we can tell.

So there wasn't just lot of time for this improbably event to have occurred, but it also had billions upon billions of opportunities to occur even within our own galaxy.

Yet to the best of our knowledge it has only occurred once in all of those opportunities. (but we really have no clue whether it occurs more often or not)

All the evidence seems to give a strong indication that life emerges as soon as possible. Carbon production and second or third generation stars are indeed important processes, but I guess what I was saying was that in respect to the age of the universe, life and intelligent life has existed and evolved during a quarter of that time at best!

I’m not merely looking at the number of stars and saying statistically speaking there’s been many chances, I’m looking at the evidence which seems to suggest that life emerges as soon as possible, whether its an integral part of the evolution of the universe.

And because we don’t know how abundant life is in the universe, we ought to take seriously the idea that it may be a more crucial part than we’ve been led to believe.

 

[Vast]

Thanks. I looked in the selection you linked to
and found the reference to Dyson
Dyson, F. 1988, Infinite in all Directions, Harper, New York, N.Y.

By coincidence, I have Dyson's "Disturbing the Universe" book 1979.
I couldn't find anything like this in it---in a quick look.

But I distinctly recall a Scientific American article by Dyson from the 1970s---a special issue on Energy---one of the September specials.
Or earlier than 1970s. And he definitely said we probably will not understand cosmology until we have a better idea of the role of intelligence in it. The suggestion was that accidentally evolved lifeforms like us may have tinkered with the fundamental constants. May even have overseen the production of the universe as we know it. May have found ways to outwit collapse or chill----fire and ice----if threatened by them.

exciting stories, good stimulus for speculation---and Dyson is good at that.

Your link was interesting as well.

I see it discussed Smolin CNS. And critically!

that is interesting too, and if you find a reference for CNS being refuted earlier this year please post it! I am not convinced that it has been refuted with certainty and would like to know of any evidence. I still feel that the Fat Lady has not sung yet, for CNS.

Here’s a http://www.wired.com/wired/6.02/dyson.html , not much in the way of molding the universe though, a lot of emphasis on patience and thinking in the long term however.

CNS is still an interesting theory. Do you think it could be applied to other models such as Andrei Linde’s eternal inflation, or cyclic universes? I wasn’t saying I’d found anything that truly refuted the theory, Susskind and Hawking seemed to make a pretty strong case against the black hole universe theory, mainly on points regarding the merging of black holes, I forget what Smolin’s argument is, maybe two universes merging into one?

 

[turbo]

Link added

meteor I think what susskind said was not carefully reasoned
but instead seems more like hasty innuendo. I do not think it comes to grips with CNS or constitutes a solid objection.

Susskind throwing this up as an objection does not encourage me to put much weight on his other arguments. Perhaps you see it differently.
(unless you were just kidding.)

Here is a link to the EDGE exchange...it is about 3/4 of the way down the page.


Correction!

http://www.edge.org/

Sorry about that - here is the link.

 

[Chronos]

Turbo, I can't get the link to work...

 

[NeutronStar]

The Meaning of Life

And because we don’t know how abundant life is in the universe, we ought to take seriously the idea that it may be a more crucial part than we’ve been led to believe.

Well, just for the record I actually believe that life is fairly common in the universe as a whole. In fact, I think its pretty common in our own galaxy actually. Now just how far it has evolved toward technological intelligence is hard to guess.

Looking at our own planet it doesn't appear that technological life forms are the norm. I mean look at how many eons went by with non-technological life forms on earth. Even today most modern life forms don't exhibit any real promise for evolving into high-tech creatures. Some may use crude tools and communication forms, but who's to say that they dinosaurs didn't also do that for most of their 65 million years? A little sign of brilliance doesn't really suggest a trend.

What's the role?
You ask what the role is of life in the universe. Well, evolving to a technological state in and of itself doesn't appear to help the universe in any way. Look at humans. We've only been technological for a very short period of time and the vast bulk of our technology is used for selfish entertainment and profit. Companies generally don't build technological devices for the betterment of the human condition. On the contrary they tend to build them for a quick profits. The more "throw-away" they are the better as far as companies are concerned. They just want to make profits. Is that the role of life in the universe? To just be greedy and selfish?

Is life by design?
Forget about any particular type of life form. Is life itself by design? Well, if it is by design it’s a pretty inefficient design at best (relatively speaking with respect to the universe as a whole). I mean, look at how many tens of billions of years it takes to create the conditions for life to arise, then a living creature might live for about 100 years if lucky. That just doesn't seem like a very well-designed situation. In fact it really cracks me up. Compared to the life-time of the universe the life-span of biological creatures is completely insignificant. Why design a universe that creates such delicate life forms? Why not create a universe that supports creatures that live at least 10,000 years. Even that would be but a flicker of time in comparison with the universe itself. One hundred year life-spans just don't seem worth the bother to me. And many creatures have far less than that.

Of course, if we look at it from the point of view of the universe experiencing itself through the consciousness of living creatures, then at any given moment there is probably always living creatures somewhere in the universe. Therefore the universe itself is constantly conscious. From that point of view individual life spans are totally irrelevant. It would also be the case that no one actually dies. After all, every one of us is really nothing more than the consciousness of the universe. In that sense we can't die.

One thing's for Sure
We will never figure it out. It's a mystery that we can ponder for as long as the universe provides us with the ability to think. But no matter how long we think about it we will never figure it out. It's a heck of a lot of fun to think about it though, and I believe that this is ultimately the role of life in the universe.

Hey! I just figured it out!

 

[Vast]

Absurdism Philosophy

Well, just for the record I actually believe that life is fairly common in the universe as a whole. In fact, I think its pretty common in our own galaxy actually. Now just how far it has evolved toward technological intelligence is hard to guess.

Looking at our own planet it doesn't appear that technological life forms are the norm. I mean look at how many eons went by with non-technological life forms on earth. Even today most modern life forms don't exhibit any real promise for evolving into high-tech creatures. Some may use crude tools and communication forms, but who's to say that they dinosaurs didn't also do that for most of their 65 million years? A little sign of brilliance doesn't really suggest a trend.

What's the role?
You ask what the role is of life in the universe. Well, evolving to a technological state in and of itself doesn't appear to help the universe in any way. Look at humans. We've only been technological for a very short period of time and the vast bulk of our technology is used for selfish entertainment and profit. Companies generally don't build technological devices for the betterment of the human condition. On the contrary they tend to build them for a quick profits. The more "throw-away" they are the better as far as companies are concerned. They just want to make profits. Is that the role of life in the universe? To just be greedy and selfish?

There’s an interesting bit in the interview I linked before which goes into the way nature itself becomes more complex, as well as particular technologies that aren’t foreseen. I think given what we have here on Earth is a clear indication that life does in fact become more complex.

One thing's for Sure
We will never figure it out. It's a mystery that we can ponder for as long as the universe provides us with the ability to think. But no matter how long we think about it we will never figure it out. It's a heck of a lot of fun to think about it though, and I believe that this is ultimately the role of life in the universe.

Hey! I just figured it out!

Absurdism is a philosophy which holds that human existence is meaningless and irrational and that any attempt to understand the universe will ultimatly fail. Absurdism is often expressed in art as in Soren Kierkegaard's plays and novels. Comedies like Monty Python and South Park can also be seen as expressions of absurdism.

 

[Vast]

Does the question addressing the role of life in the universe make sense? Or is it somewhat of an unimaginably difficult question to answer?

I guess the first direction I’d approach it would be to imagine an advanced civilization with the capabilities of teraforming a planet. Next would maybe be something a little more ambitious. Freedman suggests that such a civilization would need tremendous energy requirements, so the nearest powerful energy source is our star.

But is that all an advanced civilization is capable of achieving? Perhaps the next step would be some sort of galaxy wide colonization, and if the same thing is happening in many different regions of the universe, then eventually it looks like some sort of intelligent infrastructure could be built connecting the entire system.

So what does this say about life in general? What role is it playing?

But I distinctly recall a Scientific American article by Dyson from the 1970s---a special issue on Energy---one of the September specials.
Or earlier than 1970s. And he definitely said we probably will not understand cosmology until we have a better idea of the role of intelligence in it. The suggestion was that accidentally evolved lifeforms like us may have tinkered with the fundamental constants. May even have overseen the production of the universe as we know it. May have found ways to outwit collapse or chill----fire and ice----if threatened by them.

exciting stories, good stimulus for speculation---and Dyson is good at that.

These are some really interesting ideas, but I wonder if there is also a limit to how much an advanced civilization would be able to achieve? Changing the fundamental constants seems like it would be one of those things you just couldn’t possibly change, unless of course there were ways to create new universes? But then wouldn’t that change into a question of what role life plays in the multiverse rather than the universe?

Maybe the question doesn’t make sense after all, maybe intelligent life has an equally spontaneous and random behavior as would anything else in the universe?

 

[turbo]

Somehow, I managed to post above without the link that I referenced. About 3/4 of the way down the page, you will find Susskind and Smolin's remarks on the Anthropic Principal and on Smolin's alternative model, fine-tuned to produce black hole baby universes. The remarks are in the form of initial emails, a "challenge" by Edge to each write a single letter expounding their positions, and a long follow-up by each.

http://www.edge.org/

 

[NeutronStar]

The Relativity of 'Roles'

Absurdism is a philosophy which holds that human existence is meaningless and irrational and that any attempt to understand the universe will ultimatly fail. Absurdism is often expressed in art as in Soren Kierkegaard's plays and novels. Comedies like Monty Python and South Park can also be seen as expressions of absurdism.

I don't know anything about absurdism, but asking questions about the 'role' of life with respect to the universe is kind of absurd in a way don't you think? The whole idea of having a 'role' assumes some grand scheme of things in which to play a 'role'.

Does life really have any meaning beyond those that experience it? Is life meaningful to a rock? Is life meaningful to a star? Certainly the opposite is true. Rocks and stars are meaningful to creatures that experience life. Therefore from the point of view of living things rocks and stars play an important 'role' to life.

But does life really play any 'role' at all with respect to rocks and stars?

That's really what you are asking when you ask what 'role' life plays in the universe. It just seems to me that you are almost implying that the universe 'cares' whether or not life exists.

Well, going back to the idea that I mentioned earlier,... if the universe becomes conscious of itself through living creatures then I'd say that this is the 'role' of life (with respect to the universe). And I've answered your question fairly thoroughly I would think.

On the other hand, if you tend to have a religious type of view that living creatures are some kind of independent 'souls' that are somehow independent of the universe and might live on in a spiritual form after they leave this universe then your question is moot. In that case, life has no 'role' with respect to the universe. It would only have a role with respect to this higher spiritual form and the universe would merely be a stage of smoke and mirrors (an illusion).

So when you ask the question, "What is the role of life in the universe?" you really need to accompany that question with some sort of assumption of what you believe the universe to be. Is it a self-contained physical system? Or is it just an illusion created by a higher power? The answer to your question about 'roles' highly depends on your initial assumption.

Both situations are equally absurd to me by the way.

 

[Vast]

I don't know anything about absurdism, but asking questions about the 'role' of life with respect to the universe is kind of absurd in a way don't you think? The whole idea of having a 'role' assumes some grand scheme of things in which to play a 'role'.

Perhaps we could say that life is an integral part of the universe, thus it has a significant influence on what happens. Perhaps we could change the question and ask instead how life fits into the universe? Or maybe even how it interacts with the universe?

Does life really have any meaning beyond those that experience it? Is life meaningful to a rock? Is life meaningful to a star? Certainly the opposite is true. Rocks and stars are meaningful to creatures that experience life. Therefore from the point of view of living things rocks and stars play an important 'role' to life.

But does life really play any 'role' at all with respect to rocks and stars?

When we study non-living matter, celestial bodies, particles or whatever, we usually ask how it interacts within the system. In this case we’re asking how living matter, and to be more specific, intelligent matter interacts within that very same system.

That's really what you are asking when you ask what 'role' life plays in the universe. It just seems to me that you are almost implying that the universe 'cares' whether or not life exists.

Does the question when changed to how does life interact with the universe suit you better?

Well, going back to the idea that I mentioned earlier,... if the universe becomes conscious of itself through living creatures then I'd say that this is the 'role' of life (with respect to the universe). And I've answered your question fairly thoroughly I would think.

So does the universe use life as a sort of personal consciousness? Collective consciousness? Or are you simply saying life can become conscious of an external universe?

On the other hand, if you tend to have a religious type of view that living creatures are some kind of independent 'souls' that are somehow independent of the universe and might live on in a spiritual form after they leave this universe then your question is moot. In that case, life has no 'role' with respect to the universe. It would only have a role with respect to this higher spiritual form and the universe would merely be a stage of smoke and mirrors (an illusion).

I’m not sure where you got the impression I was suggesting any religious or spiritual ideas. The only thing I’ve asked is whether life plays a role, and in respect to things which are independent of the universe, the only thing I’ve suggested is in the form of a multiverse.

So when you ask the question, "What is the role of life in the universe?" you really need to accompany that question with some sort of assumption of what you believe the universe to be. Is it a self-contained physical system? Or is it just an illusion created by a higher power? The answer to your question about 'roles' highly depends on your initial assumption.

Both situations are equally absurd to me by the way.

The universe doesn’t really care what I believe it to be, it is the way it is, and it’s up to all of us to figure out how it really is.

 

[NeutronStar]

Does the question when changed to how does life interact with the universe suit you better?

Well, let's just say that it makes more semantic sense to me.

So does the universe use life as a sort of personal consciousness? Collective consciousness? Or are you simply saying life can become conscious of an external universe?

Since living creatures are part the universe I really can't see any division. Therefore if living creatures are conscious in a very real way the universe is conscious. How the whole "one-in-many" thing works I have no clue. But I think it's safe to say that I am this universe. As are all other living creatures.

I’m not sure where you got the impression I was suggesting any religious or spiritual ideas. The only thing I’ve asked is whether life plays a role, and in respect to things which are independent of the universe, the only thing I’ve suggested is in the form of a multiverse.

I didn't mean to imply that you were necessarily suggesting any religious or spiritual ideas, but your whole question beckons those considerations.

If the universe is all there is, then considering life to be the consciousness of the universe is a valid concept. On the other hand, if we think of life (consciousness in particular) as being something completely separate from physical existence, then this introduces the concept that we (conscious beings) may be something totally separate from a physical universe that may very possible be nothing more than an illusion.

The universe doesn’t really care what I believe it to be, it is the way it is, and it’s up to all of us to figure out how it really is.

This is true. But is it really up to anyone to figure it out? Some would argue that merely enjoying the experience of life is the ultimate tribute to life. Don't ask why, just appreciate the result.

I'm not really suggesting any particular philosophy. I'm just pointing out the logic. Why is it any more logical to think that we need to figure anything out, than it is to just assume that we should enjoy it for what it is?

Now, in my case (and probably yours) attempting to figure things out is enjoyable. So we are actually getting the best of both worlds.

But the bottom line is that it may well be impossible to figure out the true nature of the universe. And without knowing that it's anyone's guess what the 'role' of life might be.

Even to talk about 'interaction',… How does life 'interact' with the universe? Well from a purely physical point of view life has very little impact on the universe. In fact, it is so negligible that it may as well be ignored completely. The opposite is obviously quite different. The universe has a huge impact on life, and living things. So I'd say that from a physical point of view the 'interaction' of life with the universe is extremely lopsided.

Once again, moving on to the level of consciousness, and viewing life as a means of brining consciousness to the universe itself. Then life has an extreme impact on the universe because without life the universe would not be conscious of itself.

And finally, if we move into the realm of considering that consciousness might be 'external' to the physical universe then to ask who life 'interacts' with the universe is really asking the wrong question because in this scenario the universe is just an illusion and the real question should be, "How to living creatures interact with their pervader".

I just wanted to avoid using the word "creator".

After all, for all we really know, we may be our own pervader.

By the way, just like you, I also am pursuing these questions. Responding to this thread and considering these ideas is proof of my participation.

 

[Mike2]

I don't know anything about absurdism, but asking questions about the 'role' of life with respect to the universe is kind of absurd in a way don't you think? The whole idea of having a 'role' assumes some grand scheme of things in which to play a 'role'.

Does life really have any meaning beyond those that experience it? Is life meaningful to a rock? Is life meaningful to a star? Certainly the opposite is true. Rocks and stars are meaningful to creatures that experience life. Therefore from the point of view of living things rocks and stars play an important 'role' to life.

Information theory tells us that entropy is related to information through probabilities, that the information content of an absolute certainty is zero, and more information is contained in the more improbable events. We learn nothing from a choice of an absolute given. There's no surprise in learning it. But if some highly unlikely event takes place, we sit up and take notice.

So if the information content of the universe as a whole must be conserved at zero, then there must be something in the universe to balance all the effects of entropy in the universe. If the expansion itself of the universe is seen as an increase in entropy, then there must exist forces to reduce entropy. And life may be that counter-balance to entropy in the universe. Our purpose in life may be to perfect form and structure, at least that seems to be how we define progress.

from:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=371369&postcount=2

 

[NeutronStar]

Information theory tells us that entropy is related to information through probabilities

I totally reject the notion that entropy is related to information. Entropy is a thermodynamic concept that has been grossly distorted into being related to information. I see absolutely no evidence for this. On the contrary I see very compelling evidence against it.

Now having said that, there are compelling arguments for relating entropy to information. However, those argument define "information" in ways that do not easily translate into what most laymen would mean by the word "information".

The other thing about entropy and information is that the whole concept came into being from a thermodynamic point of view based on an assumption of randomness and statistics.

But quons aren't random. (where quon refers to any fundamental particle). Fundamental particles already contain "information" that cannot changed. In other words, the whole biological thing was predetermined by the information contained in quons. It didn't arise from random statistics or information conservation as entropy would suggest.

The whole entropy/information thing is way overblown in my opinion. Entropy comes in handy for calculating potential energies (which is what it was designed for). But using it in conversations about the complexity of living things of how they came to be is totally irrelevant IMHO.

Although I will grant you that many prominent scientist have chosen to go down that path. I just think it is a totally misguided science.

So if the information content of the universe as a whole must be conserved at zero, then there must be something in the universe to balance all the effects of entropy in the universe. If the expansion itself of the universe is seen as an increase in entropy, then there must exist forces to reduce entropy. And life may be that counter-balance to entropy in the universe. Our purpose in life may be to perfect form and structure, at least that seems to be how we define progress.

This is precisely the type of silly talk that I'm referring to.

The fact that humans mass produce complex technological devices has absolutely no effect on the overall entropy of the universe at all. Our high-tech products, and our resulting thermodynamic waste is extremely local to planet earth. When our sun goes nova anything that humans have done will be completely erased for all intents and purposes. There simply won't be any net effect to the entropy of the universe as a whole because of our activities.

The idea that somehow we exist because the information content of the universe must be conserved is simply absurd. The evolution of life on Earth has extremely local thermodynamic effects that cancel each other out. "Information" could have just as easily been conserved without any need at all for any biological activity.

I don't see where the concept of entropy even comes into play as an explanation for 'why' life might have evolved. We can, however, see why the evolution of life does not violate the thermodynamic laws of entropy. But that doesn't mean that life was somehow required to maintain the entropy of the universe.

That idea simply doesn't hold water.

 

[marcus]

Here’s a I wasn’t saying I’d found anything that truly refuted the theory, Susskind and Hawking seemed to make a pretty strong case against the black hole universe theory, mainly on points regarding the merging of black holes, I forget what Smolin’s argument is, maybe two universes merging into one?

I don't understand how there is a case against "black hole universe" idea based on black hole merger.

Recent analysis (like by Modesto, Hosain, ...) suggests that spacetime continues at the former-singularity and undergoes a bounce----that is, it re-expands. Conditions for inflation are present generically (Date, Hussain).

We don't know that the Loop gravity picture is true (of what goes on at center of black hole, or at big bang) or if the bounce is real. But this is the most detailed model we have of how space behaves at these events.


Indeed black holes do sometimes merge, and their inner regions (which used to be considered singularities, before quantization) merge.
If they merge then they merge, regardless. The consequences might well be awful to inhabitants if there were any, totally screwing up the physics of both universes, but that's the breaks. I hope it never happens to our universe.

I can only speculate as to what a merger between two black hole universes might be like. that seems like a good problem for theorists to work on AFTER they get a workable quantum gravity (theory of spacetime) and then build something like the Standard Model into that new framework.
the fundamental physical constants must be intrinsic to however space is represented. I don't see how two universes with different fundamental constants could ever blend, but if they have to blend then it is up to the possessors of a unified theory (a general relativistic quantum physics) to predict the outcome.

You say Smolin had some thoughts about this? I will take a look!
the link you give is this
http://www.edge.org/

Yes, this was a fascinating exchange and is worth re-reading
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin_susskind04/smolin_susskind.html

It is a lot to assimilate.

I especially like the last two letters where they are printed in two columns side-by-side (so neither has the last word!)

I found several of the arguments we have mentioned here. But I did not find susskind's argument about what happens when black holes merge. If you can tell me where on the page that is, i would appreciate.

I see where Smolin is discussing the possibility that several universes can exist in the pit of a black hole---perhaps like the distinct bubble regions of a multiverse. It looks like is saying that several distinct ("baby universe")regions could form from the bounce.

 

[turbo]

I don't understand how there is a case against "black hole universe" idea based on black hole merger.

~SNIP~

I found several of the arguments we have mentioned here. But I did not find susskind's argument about what happens when black holes merge. If you can tell me where on the page that is, i would appreciate.

This passage is located in Susskind's paper: "I make a number of comments about Smolin's theory of Cosmic Natural Selection."

The question of how many black holes are formed is somewhat ambiguous. What if two black holes coalesce to form a single one. Does that count as one black hole or two? Strictly speaking, given that black holes are defined by the global geometry, it is only one black hole. What happens if all the stars in the galaxy eventually fall into the central black hole? That severely diminishes the counting. So we better assume that the bigger the black hole, the more babies it will have. Perhaps one huge black hole spawns more offspring that 1022 stellar black holes.

From the final (side by side) statements:

Anyone who has read the recent New York Times article by Dennis Overbye knows that the ultimate fate of information falling into a black hole was the subject of an long debate involving Stephen Hawking, myself, the famous Dutch physicist Gerard 't Hooft and many other well known physicists. Hawking believed that information does disappear behind the horizon, perhaps into a baby universe. This would be consistent with Smolin's idea that offspring universes, inside the black hole, remember at least some of the details of the mother universe. My own view and 't Hooft's was that nothing can be lost from the outside world—not a single bit.

I find this statement to be a bit tough to take. Indeed, "nothing can be lost from the outside world"? If a black hole strips the matter from an orbiting star, and that matter ends up on the opposite side of the BH's event horizon, then matter (and the information that it represents) has disappeared from our universe. In contrast, Hawking radiation - promotion of virtual particles to real status just outside the event horizon, results in a net gain of information in our universe, if we regard virtual pairs as quantum probabilities and real particles as information-bearing entities. Susskind is a smart man, and he drags 't Hooft (a Nobel laureate) in as ballast for his ideas on this point, but I sense a disconnect in his definition of "information". Perhaps it arises from some fundamental differences in the way information is handled in String and QFT as opposed to GR.

 

[meteor]

I was hearing at the BBC this weekend an interview with James Lovelock, the crator of the Gaia hypothesis, I wonder if some other PF member heard this interview
If you don't know what's about (improbable), its the fact of treating the Earth as a living system able of autoregulation. Wikipedia gives the definition of Gaia according to Lovelock:
"a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory
I will like to hear opinions of PF members about this, and about the possibility of other high scale structures having life as one of their characteristics

I find interesting that Wikipedia says that there's a distinction between strong Gaia theories and weak Gaia theories

 

[Mike2]

The fact that humans mass produce complex technological devices has absolutely no effect on the overall entropy of the universe at all. Our high-tech products, and our resulting thermodynamic waste is extremely local to planet earth. When our sun goes nova anything that humans have done will be completely erased for all intents and purposes. There simply won't be any net effect to the entropy of the universe as a whole because of our activities.

The idea that somehow we exist because the information content of the universe must be conserved is simply absurd. The evolution of life on Earth has extremely local thermodynamic effects that cancel each other out. "Information" could have just as easily been conserved without any need at all for any biological activity.

I don't see where the concept of entropy even comes into play as an explanation for 'why' life might have evolved. We can, however, see why the evolution of life does not violate the thermodynamic laws of entropy. But that doesn't mean that life was somehow required to maintain the entropy of the universe.

That idea simply doesn't hold water.

Two questions:

What is the probability that a universe exists? The only alternative to something (the universe) is NOTHING. In other words, there is no alternative. So the probability of the universe existing is 100%. Right?

Is the complex structure of life an increase of entropy or a reduction of entropy?

 

[NeutronStar]

What is the probability that a universe exists? The only alternative to something (the universe) is NOTHING. In other words, there is no alternative. So the probability of the universe existing is 100%. Right?

This would be like saying that since I don't play the lottery I can't lose, therefore I must win if I don't play!

This is just a very bad application of probability theory.

Is the complex structure of life an increase of entropy or a reduction of entropy?

Life? Just exactly what is it that you are calling life? Are you merely looking at the final product of a living creature, or are you including all of the processes that come together to form life?

If you are looking at the entire process I'd have to say that life doesn't represent either an increase or reduction of entropy. If all the processes involved with the production of a living thing are accounted for the total entropy would be conserved.

You can't just look at a complex animal and say, "Hey that thing is really complicated". You have to look at all of the thermodynamic processes that are involved to produce it and maintain it. Things like respiration, and chemical conversions, waste materials, etc, etc, etc. Once all of these things have been accounted for there is no net change in the entropy of the entire system save for the heat dissipated which will inevitiably increase the entropy of the entire system. So looking at the whole process, life actually increases entropy just like everything else.

 

[turbo]

Two questions:

What is the probability that a universe exists? The only alternative to something (the universe) is NOTHING. In other words, there is no alternative. So the probability of the universe existing is 100%. Right?

Is the complex structure of life an increase of entropy or a reduction of entropy?

According to your post above, the existence of something with a 100% probablility of existence holds NO information. Must we therefore assume that NO information is encoded in the existence of our universe? Do you somehow need to total up the information contained in our universe and arrive at a grand total of NO infomation? Just wondering where this might go...