What are the chances of the Big Bang producing us?

[Seraph316]

Has anyone yet asked a computer to calculate the chance of a Big Bang eventually forming thinking modern humans (e.g. Big Bang produces Brian Cox) purely by natural process and without some programme to channel things?

If so, can anyone tell me (even approximately) what the result of this calculation would be?

Obviously there is a question behind the question. You see, I am asking if it is reasonably to accept as practical or even possible that the Big Bang alone accounts for our existence if the actual chances of it happening are really astronomical, or if what is remotely possible in theory is almost inconceivable unlikely in reality.

Please bear with me as I try to explain what's itching away at the back of my mind. I'm thinking of Russian Roulette. The initial chance of a kill on the first pull of the trigger is 6 to 1 and, if the gun continues to click rather than bang, the chances reduce until the sixth pull of the trigger has to fire the revolver: a deadly but short game with a maximum of 6 attempts. But what happens if the referee spins the chamber after each pull of the trigger? The game becomes longer - in fact, theoretically, it could take forever because there is no maximum number of attampts. However, the chances are still good for a reasonably swift end to the game, maybe in an hour. But what if there are not 6 chambers to the revolver but 60 - with the chamber being spun after each attempt. Now the game is much less likely to end quickly - could it take a day? Now what if 6000?

Eventually, if the chamber is always spun - or the random element still allowed in play - then it becomes impractical, with larger astronomical numbers, to assume that the game will end or that a bang will ever happen. In theory it can, but will it really?

If you have a huge number of chances (trillions to 1) but the number is finite and reduces with each attempt, then eventually you must expect to get the result aimed for - the monkeys and typewriters eventually beget a working universe. But, if each attempt at a Big Bang starts out in the same way, then it is as if the chamber is spun anew each time and is just as astronomically unlikely at each attempt. In theory it is possible - but could it - would it - ever happen?

The last sobering thought is this. If the real chances of the Big Bang producing mankind by natural law and process are practically nil then - given that we are here - how did we happen? If chance and process cannot practically explain us, then is there real reason to assume a designer after all? Or - if the chances of us being here are trillions to 1 against - and we are here - then it follows by elimination that the chances of us being here by design are trillions to 1 for - QED!

"When you have eliminated the impossible then what remains, however improbable, must be the truth," Sherlock Holmes.

From school I remember this, "Adam and Eve and Kickmewell went down to the sea to bathe. Adam and Eve got drowned, but who do you think was saved?"

Does logic push us to inevitable but forbidden conclusions, and should we shy away from them?

 

[Antiphon]

You can't ask a computer such a question unless you teach it the math to arrive at the solution. Nobody has the math.

The question can't be answered without knowing how many attempts at the big bang have been made by the universe.

All you can say with certainty is that the probability is greater than zero.

 

[Chalnoth]

Has anyone yet asked a computer to calculate the chance of a Big Bang eventually forming thinking modern humans (e.g. Big Bang produces Brian Cox) purely by natural process and without some programme to channel things?

If so, can anyone tell me (even approximately) what the result of this calculation would be?

Obviously there is a question behind the question. You see, I am asking if it is reasonably to accept as practical or even possible that the Big Bang alone accounts for our existence if the actual chances of it happening are really astronomical, or if what is remotely possible in theory is almost inconceivable unlikely in reality.

Please bear with me as I try to explain what's itching away at the back of my mind. I'm thinking of Russian Roulette. The initial chance of a kill on the first pull of the trigger is 6 to 1 and, if the gun continues to click rather than bang, the chances reduce until the sixth pull of the trigger has to fire the revolver: a deadly but short game with a maximum of 6 attempts. But what happens if the referee spins the chamber after each pull of the trigger? The game becomes longer - in fact, theoretically, it could take forever because there is no maximum number of attampts. However, the chances are still good for a reasonably swift end to the game, maybe in an hour. But what if there are not 6 chambers to the revolver but 60 - with the chamber being spun after each attempt. Now the game is much less likely to end quickly - could it take a day? Now what if 6000?

Eventually, if the chamber is always spun - or the random element still allowed in play - then it becomes impractical, with larger astronomical numbers, to assume that the game will end or that a bang will ever happen. In theory it can, but will it really?

If you have a huge number of chances (trillions to 1) but the number is finite and reduces with each attempt, then eventually you must expect to get the result aimed for - the monkeys and typewriters eventually beget a working universe. But, if each attempt at a Big Bang starts out in the same way, then it is as if the chamber is spun anew each time and is just as astronomically unlikely at each attempt. In theory it is possible - but could it - would it - ever happen?

The last sobering thought is this. If the real chances of the Big Bang producing mankind by natural law and process are practically nil then - given that we are here - how did we happen? If chance and process cannot practically explain us, then is there real reason to assume a designer after all? Or - if the chances of us being here are trillions to 1 against - and we are here - then it follows by elimination that the chances of us being here by design are trillions to 1 for - QED!

"When you have eliminated the impossible then what remains, however improbable, must be the truth," Sherlock Holmes.

From school I remember this, "Adam and Eve and Kickmewell went down to the sea to bathe. Adam and Eve got drowned, but who do you think was saved?"

Does logic push us to inevitable but forbidden conclusions, and should we shy away from them?

Your reasoning here is flawed on a number of levels. However, I'll just focus on one part of it: the probability of our existence.

One of the fundamental insights of quantum mechanics is that everything which can happen does happen. Our very existence proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that we can happen. Therefore, our existence was inevitable.

But I should mention that even if our understanding of physical law didn't predict our existence was inevitable, it wouldn't support your idea. The problem is that it sets up a false dichotomy. If you found a way in which our current understanding of physical law was wrong (demonstrating that our existence is impossible would be an obvious contradiction), it would not mean that your pet theory is correct. It would only mean that our current understanding of physical law isn't.

 

[Fra]

> What are the chances of the Big Bang producing us?

My first impression seeing this question is: Why do you ask?

Are you placing your life savings on ladbrokes, betting on where we are really here?

Actually, it's pretty clear that for such a somewhat silly question, the probability can be anything you like! because it depends on what input you make up.

So in order to give a serious answer, the first question is why do you ask? In particular: How are you going to "verify" if whatever probability number you come up with is right?

A more constructive question is to try to ask for the probability in some event you are actually betting on. Noone is betting on wether we are there. I think there is a good amount of irrationality in these type of questions.

/Fredrik

 

[Borek]

If chance and process cannot practically explain us, then is there real reason to assume a designer after all?

Put yourself in shoes of the designer and ask yourself the same question - what are chances that I, designer, am a product of the Big Bang? If they are so small, perhaps it is more likely that I was designed?

This continues to infinity. You have not solved anything, you just pushed the question back in time.

 

[Tanelorn]

This question has bothered me from time to time. It is silmilar to the one that intelligent life will be found on anyone given planet. When one considers the various physical properties of the universe that have to be just right and at each stage in order to avoid a barren and dead universe it is quite mind boggling. I was reading about the fine structure constant only yesterday as one example. I am no longer religious in the traditional sense, but I have often wondered if it is even possible to program all the physical parameters of the universe at the beginning and just leave it, or if it is necessary to make adjustments along the way similar to a control system. Perhaps the universe is a giant oven and the master chef has to ensure that the baking is going well in order to make the maximum level of complexity of matter and its interactions. Getting metaphysical again.. apologies..

 

[JaredJames]

This question seems nonsensical to me.

The big bang only has to produce the initial conditions for life - after which, as long as nothing drastic happens (the sun exploding etc) things will happen on their own via other processes.

So asking about producing humans just doesn't make sense.

For me, the better question would be "what are the odds of the big bang creating the conditions for life?" - but that just solves the question. You still have all the issues outlined above.

 

[Tanelorn]

Jared, Re: "what are the odds of the big bang creating the conditions for life?" I assumed that was the meaning without thinking..
As well as the initial programmed conditions, is it 100% certain that the universe has not occasionally required some intelligent fine adjustment to maintain balance from time to time?
I run a few very simple control systems in work and I cannot turn my back for very long before something gets out of wack..
Almost certainly negative feedback can be provided from within the universe also eg. galaxy size, cosmological expansion. Adjustment doesn't have to be intelligent, external or divine.

Seraph, I assume it is ok to interpret it as condition for life? I don't think it will be possible to give you an answer like 4,232,123 : 1. It is an interesting philosophical abstraction but I think on the borders of Science.

 

[Chalnoth]

This question has bothered me from time to time. It is silmilar to the one that intelligent life will be found on anyone given planet. When one considers the various physical properties of the universe that have to be just right and at each stage in order to avoid a barren and dead universe it is quite mind boggling. I was reading about the fine structure constant only yesterday as one example. I am no longer religious in the traditional sense, but I have often wondered if it is even possible to program all the physical parameters of the universe at the beginning and just leave it, or if it is necessary to make adjustments along the way similar to a control system. Perhaps the universe is a giant oven and the master chef has to ensure that the baking is going well in order to make the maximum level of complexity of matter and its interactions. Getting metaphysical again.. apologies..

Tweaking the parameters would tend to result in things like explosions. So it's not happening.

If anything, the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is just evidence for a prolific universe that has a wide variety of possible low-energy physical laws. Now, it is also possible that some of the fine tuning is just an illusion, a result of our lack of understanding of physics at high energies. We don't yet know.

 

[Seraph316]

Firstly, thank you all for your input.

Q. Why do I ask the question? A. Natural curiosity.

I know that the chances of random or natural process getting things just right all the way from Big Bang to human awareness must be bogglingly tiny. Getting the right mix or balance to make even a roughly stable universe that doesn't implode or scatter has been described as being as likely as throwing a pencil in the air and expecting it to land on its point and stay upright at the first attempt - even before one thinks about life or consciousness.

I was curious as to whether or not anyone had ever tried to programme a computer with our most recent information to see roughly what the chances are of our being brought into existence by random or natural process, to see just how likely or unlikely it really is without an adjuster to negotiate some of the possible hiccups (To Chalnoth - whether or not changing parameters would be disastrous would surely depend on the sophistication and ability of the adjuster whose knowledge would vastly outrank ours.).

I was curious to see just what the number would look like (Could you paper your bedroom with all the 0s?).

I'm not interested here with religion or a history of who oppressed who (matters for other forums) but I have to ask which is the most likely and logical explanation for our being here, based on the information we have: Are we here by accident or design?

Fra, there are no really silly questions if asked in good faith and based on logic. Sometimes questions seem silly because they challenge accepted thinking (I'm sure most folk thought Columbus a total idiot for asking if Earth could be spherical and risking sailing ships over the edge of the obviously flat world as they believed it to be) but it is better to look and attempt answer rather than shy away from what doesn't fit your views, as some of the insecure religious people used to do.

Scientists, together with the rest of humanity, are naturally curious. This curiosity drives us. If there is a designer then we need to find out about he, she or it just as much as we need to find information about extra-terrestrial intelligence and the rest of the Cosmos. That the designer could be some teenage console game programmer in a different universe with a talent for creating RPGs and himself product of a Big Bang should not mean that we have ONLY just put the question back a notch, as Borek seems to be saying. If we found such an entity it would be a discovery of huge significance.

We are like ants on a frying pan discussing our origins and environmental warming. Here we can see something of the kitchen, but we cannot be expected to know about the rest of the house. So with any talk of a designer. Parts of our Universe are observable and may be seen by some as evidence for a designer. Therefore, why not look for it? But we cannot consider who or what made the designer or his universe because we have nothing to go on, so we have to take the question one designer or creative event at a time. I believe we have a duty of curiosity to discover and try to explain what we can see - without being worried yet about that which is totally beyond our reach.

However, the underlying question remains: Given that we and the Universe exist, which is the most logical and likely explanation for our being here - accident or design?

What do you think?

 

[JaredJames]

I think you're trying to look at this in a "what are the odds of us existing" kind of way, as if we're the only life in the entire universe. And as such it gives you a "woah, the odds of one planet having the exact conditions are tiny", view.

Of course, your initial question is difficult to answer.

So why not look at it from another perspective - given what we have observed and predicted for other extra-terrestrial bodies out there, what are the odds of other life being elsewhere in the universe?

Still a blooming difficult, if not impossible question to answer. But, because we have data to go with this we can at least try to predict "based on what we've observed, there is X chance of there being life elsewhere".

A start: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970924.html

 

[andrewkirk]

In order to measure probabilities you need to know what laws of nature you are operating under. One of the big arguments some like to have is about the "fine-tuning" of physical constants such as the speed of light or the ratio of mass of an electron to a proton, and the fact that if they were significantly different, no complex structures such as life as we know it could exist. But you can't address that question in terms of probability because you then need a set of meta-laws about what types of physical laws are possible, and that would be pure speculation.

So you need to start by assuming we are operating under the laws of nature that we currently know. Given that, and the facts that:

1. it seems very likely given the enormity of the observable universe that there are enormous number of planets capable of supporting life; and
2. the theory of evolution teaches us that, given enough time and sufficiently benign conditions, simple living organisms will evolve into complex organisms like us

the question then becomes one of what is the probability of life getting started in any given environment in which it is possible for life to survive once it gets started. This is the problem of abiogenesis and, while much research is devoted to it, there is no understanding yet as to what processes can kick-start life. Without knowing what the processes are, no estimate can be made about how likely they are to occur.

Once we do understand those processes, it may be possible to calculate a probability, if you know the size of the universe (and hence how many suitable planets there are likely to be). Unfortunately we don't know the size of the universe either, only the size of the observable universe, which would allow estimation of a lower bound greater than zero for the probability, but not an upper bound different from 1.

It is even possible that the universe is infinite. If that is the case then, no matter how low the probability of abiogenesis in a suitable setting, the probability of its occurring somewhere, given that we know it is possible, will be 1. In fact that would mean there must be an infinite number of planets with civilised beings on them.