Steve, you make a fair point. First let me say the following: None of us know how rare or common life is beyond Earth. What we do know is that life is common and diverse on Earth, and that so far there is no sign of life elsewhere. It is not obviously present on other planets in the solar system, and if there is intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy it is not doing anything to make its presence known in verifiable ways. We also now know that there are many rocky planets around other stars so the opportunity for extraterrestrial life to evolve is there.

My essay is a hypothesis for how things may have come into being. What I say in my essay are predictions based on that hypothesis, not claims of fact. I should perhaps have made that clearer in the conclusion but I reached the word count limit.

My statement about rarity is that intelligent life is rare beyond Earth. This is a prediction based on observations of fine-tuning and the accidental events that made our evolution possible. It is consistent with the absence of signals from extraterrestrials, but it could still easily be wrong and I don't intend to pretend otherwise.

I do think that primitive bacterial life could be much more common than intelligent life. Early bacteria on Earth would have modified the atmosphere. There were several mechanisms for producing oxygen before chlorophyll took over. Oxygen would not be maintained in the atmosphere without some biological mechanism. There is a good chance we will be able to determine whether oxygen is present in exoplanet atmospheres within the next few years.

I do think that present claims about Earth-like exoplanets is being over-hyped. It is easy to get optimistic about life being common because we would like it to be so. Perhaps it is common, but my prediction is that the circumstances that make life evolve to higher levels are very rare. I think your more optimistic view is more the norm now.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #25

Hi Phil, glad you made it.

I much enjoyed what felt like a whirlwind guided tour and personal overview of the cosmos and current physics. It seems these essays form windows into the widely disparate workings of human brains (yes that was DIS...!)

Nicely written again and wide ranging. I rather though my own had packed in a full compliment of linked topics to build a similar conclusion, though more bottom up and derivative than your top down view, but I think you seamlessly hit double figures on concepts two pages before me!

I didn't find any real bootstrapping, which was good as I'd have expected it to invalidate your fundamental proposition (with which I and my essay agree). On consciousness I did like; "If they think there is something more, then they are falling for an illusion."

But two questions;

Re; "no scientific explanation is required beyond what can be provided by psychology and biology. I assume you didn't mean to 'exclude' Physics and QM? (both smaller scale than biology and important in neurology).

and; Re; 'there is evidence that an RNA-only world was sustained' I'm interested (I do discuss replication/mutation) Can you identify where and/or give any link?

Well done. I'd be interested in your views on mine, which I'm sure you'll find interesting but is a bit 'testing' (in more ways that one!) and includes a simplest possible classical reproduction of the full quantum state predictions!

Best of luck. I wonder if there's a realistic chance this year of getting into the ....no ..of course not. Silly me!

Peter

    ...that'll be that quantum uncertainty again then! I was definitely logged in when I started writing!

    Peter

    Hello Peter, it is good to be back in a new essay contest.

    My statement "no scientific explanation is required..." is causing some confusion. I was just trying to say that there is no magic element involved. This statement has to be taken in the context of what I wrote about consciousness in the main part of the essay. I should have explained it more clearly.

    I do think QM has some relevance to consciousness, but not in the extraordinary kind of way that people like Penrose do. I think our consciousness in a quantum world is a sum over many possible experiences. A deterministic intelligence in a computer might be less conscious if it is not connected to the quantum world by its senses. Well it is just my view.

    The RNA-world idea is fascinating. I wish I had a second life to spend studying biology rather than physics so that I could know more about it. I have not been very good with references but start in wikipedia and follow the numerous sources in there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

    By the way, when I talk of bootstrapping I am thinking of how a computer starts up. I short piece of hardwired code tells it to read and run a longer code segment in the operating system on disk. This can happen through several levels. My view is that the fine-tuning in physics is like a short piece of code that sets off evolution and then reasoning in the brain. Perhaps the analogy is not that perfect. Bootstrapping can also mean a top-down causality and yes there is some of that too.

    I will of course be reading you essay and I look forward to it.

    Dear Philip E. Gibbs:

    I greatly enjoyed your essay. In fact your observation that: "There are many who look to religion for answers to these questions, but in the past the actions of Gods were needed to explain many things that are now understood through science " is the jumping off point for my own essay in the contest "From Athena to AI" which I would be greatly honored for you to read and comment upon.

    I love the fact that you decided to go deep and attempted to answer the question: "Why is there something and why is it as it is?", which I myself avoided not only because I find it unanswerable, but find it beyond my limited ability to answer.

    What I am curious is to how you answer the question is why "the ensemble of logical possibilities" exists at all? What, to paraphrase Stephen Hawking breathes fire into its existence in the first place?

    Rick Searle

      Thanks for your comments, Philip. If you have the time, I would like to see you thoughts on my essay.

      Jim

      hi phillip,

      in retrospect of many decades it would be apparent that i have had a rather unusual upbringing, having wandered as a child and teenager the various stately homes that the Transcendental Meditation movement used for teaching its courses. posters on the wall filled with quantum mechanics equations linked to ancient sanskrit texts, for example.

      i have also been extremely lucky enough to know dr alex hankey, who *has* indeed come up with a formal mathematical framework in which "consciousness" may be defined, as a QM system operating at a "Critical Instability Point".

      regarding intelligence, i am reminded of the bun-fight between creationists and evolutionists. whenever i hear them going at it, all i want to do is bang their damn heads together and shout at them, "you idiots! evolution *IS* god's chosen tool of choice for intelligent design. now cut it out!"

      :)

      put simply, a careful analysis at all levels of operation of our universe shows patterns that allow us to conclude that "creative intelligence" (randomness with self-replication and critical-instability feedback) is a fundamental inherent emergent property. all minds *BORROW* the fabric of the universe in order to have "thought" and other aspects that are BELIEVED to be unique to humans or at least unique to each individual.

      i sort-of wandered into this perspective by chance.

      Jim, the link works for me. Perhaps you could try a different browser.

      I look forward to reading your essay. I have a lot to get through.

      Phil

      Luke, my mother has been in the TM movement for many years and has had a particular interest in my work because of that. The statement that '"consciousness" may be defined, as a QM system operating at a "Critical Instability Point"' is not far removed from my thinking, but the problem is to turn these words into something more concrete.

      I am an atheist and my philosophical position is that the universe and our consciousness arise naturally without external interference if you accept anthropic selection from the landscape of logical possibilities. However I recognise that intelligent design provides an alternative explanation for fine-tuning. If you have answers for other questions that religion raises then I can't argue against that as a philosphical position. To me religion seems improbable but not impossible. What I do find harder to understand is the people who rile against both multiverse and religious philosophies. I don't see how a third class of alternative can work. If anyone can provide one that is self-consistent then I would be happy to accept that too.

      Thank you again for your feedback.

      Thank you for this question. It is hard to get across a particular ontological position. Equations don't help much, but people's thoughts are influenced by particular words such as "existence" and "reality" I think you have to question what words like this mean to you. In my essay I have tried to use different language that might make people think differently.

      I talk about "logical possibilities" to convey the idea that you don't have to think of these mathematical structures as existing. They potentially exist. Then I introduce the idea that actually existence is relative. We are embedded in one logical possibility and to us existence means anything that we can access within that world. Anything described within another logical possibility will think the same about its version of reality. I know people will say things like "that's circular" or "these are just words" or "Yes but what makes us exist anyway" I think you just have to recognise that the very question comes from within our psyche and is not necessary. It is possible to form a philosophical view in which there is no great mystery after all, even without religion.

      Here is a link to what John Baez wrote when Max Tegmark first put his ideas forward. He quotes Wheeler's question that is similar to Hawking's. At that time I had already written about similar concepts under the title "Theory of Theories" but I added the idea that the form of the general theory for physics is determined by a principle of universality. Other people are now starting to think in a similar way (I rarely get cited but never mind) I think this is leading to a consistent philosophical picture that will fit in with the mathematical developments that are now emerging

      I don't know why these links sometimes dont work. The links were

      http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week146.html

      https://www.quantamagazine.org/20170223-bootstrap-geometry-theory-space/

      Right from the beginning a 'feel good' factor existed through the article, when the author took us on a journey from fundamental laws to life. I read it like a beautiful story. But no where did the author allow us to go beyond the story line to actual connection of the causes to processes described. More or less, each step felt like a reasonable connection, without being able to see actually how. For instance, "Higher organisms such as ourselves have developed positive and negative emotions as one way of aiding survival but these also result in us setting ourselves goals that give us pleasure without affecting survival." From our privileged cognitive capacity to understanding emotion, and pleasure, we know what he is referring to, but we develop no idea of what is emotion, or pleasure, in the physical realm, and how do they emerge? Most importantly, what kind of language of expression nature must have to express such abstract notions?

      Again it felt so nice from anthropic principles to learn how lucky we are at each stage of our development, or of our abilities. But could it be possible that we simply have no imagination of what other forms of systematic information processors may be naturally lurking around? I deliberately did not use the term 'intelligent life forms', high level information processing systems seem as good. Or, if nature needed to create a clever organism only far fewer times, the interventions by such organisms would then bring about far greater and sophisticated forms of living things, and I do not mean only robotic instances. I often feel it is the limitation of our imagination that has reflected itself as anthropic thinking.

      The vastness of known universe may have such exciting possibilities that the wildest of thinkers, novelist, science fiction film makers may not ever be able to capture that.

      There is one point about the essay that goes without saying, it brings out in no uncertain terms, the extreme preciousness of life forms on earth, in particular of higher intelligent being. It should be taught in every forms of education, in every class rooms, to every human being who does not care for the limit of resources (dear Americans), and to every politician on the planet.

      Rajiv

        Dear Dr. Philip Gibbs,

        Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

        I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

        Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

        The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

        A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

        Joe Fisher, Realist

          Rajiv, thank you for your kind comments. It gives me great pleasure that people enjoy my essay and it makes them think and ask searching questions. That makes me think more too and advances my own ideas. That is why I like these contests. As an independent researcher it is hard to get that kind of interaction any other way.

          You asked for more details on the causal connections and I acknowledge that my essay goes through everything very quickly. I think the topic question "How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?" requires a big picture answer that covers a long sequence of arguments from mathematical philosophy up to consciousness. Given the length constraint it was never going to be possible to cover everything in depth. Some of my other essays provide more details on some aspects, but I have not covered points on biology, evolution and consciousness before. Perhaps one day I will write another book.

          In particular you ask about how emotions that developed for survival lead to bigger goals. I covered that in just one sentence! Of course much more could be said. I think this is also an area that people can fill in with their own experience while some of the other points covered are less familiar. We all know how emotions from love and pleasure to violence can be related to our natural need to reproduce and survive as social animals. Perhaps it is less obvious how such emotions coupled with intelligence make us interested in art and science as an accidental byproduct, but that is how it seems to happen. It would be an interesting area to expand on with examples of the role emotions such as curiosity play in nature.

          You ask about other information processors. I think this is something you cover in your essay so I will look forward to reading that. It is interesting that we are not the only intelligent animals. Dolphins have a high intelligence but they have not developed technologies as we have. Our hands play as much of a role as our minds in that respect.

          Your points lead me to the question: how much of our development is due to anthropic fine-tuning, and how much is inevitable given the opportunities offered by a rich chemistry and geology? I have mentioned that chemistry seems fine-tuned to provide what may be one basic pattern for advanced life using DNA and proteins. Many other elements play what seem to be essential roles in the development of life. The trouble with the anthropic argument at this level is that there are very few physical constants that can be used to fine-tune chemistry. Once it is determined that chemistry is to be based on light fermions surrounding a heavy nucleus, the essential chemical properties of the elements are given by their atomic number alone. Only the fine-structure constant and the mass ratio for electrons to nucleons provide parameters for fine-tuning. I think there is only enough scope there to provide the right levels of stability for organic molecules. The rest must be opportunistic use of the chemicals that are available. If this is correct then we can expect some very different solutions to survival on other planets, even if all advanced life is DNA based. However, I still think the sequence of events that took evolution to humans appears accidental at many junctures so intelligent technologically-advanced life will be rare. I accept that I may be wrong.

          Oops my reply to this went into a different thread below.

          Thank you Joe Fisher. The catch in Einstein's quote is ".. but not simpler."

          How simple can the universe be and still produce life without outside interference from a more complex realm? I will read your essay to find out.

          Thank you Philip,

          I am not posing that life is not being part of it, I argue that life (and so time) is an emergent phenomenon from Total Consciousness in Total Simultaneity. So this emergent phenomenon is a restricted (by time) form of consciousness, that why we are experiencing as with a beginning and an end.

          I await your comment on my thread.

          best regards

          Wilhelmus

          I will get there don't worry. Very busy painting the house.

          Dear Mr. Gibbs

          I did not completly answered on your question at my forum.

          How did you find the relationship between maths and physics in your essay?

          This question can be answered in different ways.

          Methodologically it is explained in my three FQXi essays.

          Much more important means of explanation is through the process of scientific knowledge. But the process are invited to talk about only those who are well-known. Who cares except viXra how I came to the result. Once, maybe I write extensively about the process. Here I will try to put on a chronologically only the main points.

          The relation between mathematics and physics has long been well known beyond formulas containing 2pi or e.

          But it took me about 3 years to understand the importance of the combination of these two mathematical constants exp (2pi). I'm not even thinking about mathematics at the beginning. Mathematics is self-inflicted later.

          First I asked for a solution on the Internet, concluded that it does not.

          I chose what is unquestionable and essential. I rejected irrelevant. I found that 80% of essential are Planck formulas, then Newton, Kepler, mc ^ 2, deltaE = 0.

          I realized that these formulas should be to put at the relationships on levels so that at each level are valued universal constants.

          I realized that there must be unique level at which begins matter (substance);

          In many ways I have tried to determine the proton shift. I realized that this is not a mathematical relationship than the relation (7) containing physical constants.

          It has been shown that a unique level has a unique mathematically expressed trait.

          I found other unique levels that have been shown to have a physical character, which is published in my articles.

          I followed the literature and is often encountered confirmation of my results that I was encouraged. Last, confirmation is the simple equation (3). After examining the work of R. Boškovića I saw, he long ago realized the importance of non-extended points. Weinberg, for example, much later, did not know it, but he mentioned pion instead. To confirm: Mathematics in my work is the result, not the starting point. Eq. (3) and (7) are exact, by definition. Eq. (17) is confirmed by the results provided. It is interesting that before I got a heavier (7) than simpler (3). Proof of this is the vixra article "Universal Gravitational Constant Via Proton" which was published before I found out (3).

          Best regards,

          Branko