Billions of Planets

[KUJustin]

I didn't want to continue the hijack of the other thread and I thought this was significant enough to merit it's own place. From Snowball in the Pride and Faith 50k thread:

[ QUOTE ]

If there are 100 billion billion planets in the universe, and ours has life whereas the others don't, isn't it reasonable to assume a chemical reaction with a similar improbability? BTW, the labwork trying to create life HAS created precursors for life. Give them another 100 billion billion trials, and they'll definitely surprise you with the results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dawkins is probably a smarter guy than me, but is this argument legit? If I play poker with you and get pocket Aces 100 hands in a row, you're gonna quit playing with me and be damned pissed at my cheating.

So I propose there are billions times billions of planets and as such there are billions with poker playing people and so someone is bound to get pocket aces 100 hands in a row. I know my math assumptions are very rough, but aside from that what is wrong with that justification?

[madnak]

The point is that there will be many more people cheating to get 100 pocket aces in a row than there will who legitimately get 100 pocket aces in a row. Given the result of 100 pocket aces, it's more likely that cheating is happening than that it's a coincidence. But of course, it's entirely possible that it's a coincidence.

But you're not representing the argument at all. The fact is that 100 pocket aces in a row happens very rarely. Thus, it is unreasonable to assume that if pocket aces don't occur 100 times in a row within the next 1000 hands, it must be unlikely that pocket aces will occur 100 times in a row over 10^50000 hands. In the former case it's extremely unlikely pocket aces will occur 100 times in a row. In the latter case it's almost certain that they will.

To bring the analogy down to a level that's easier to digest. Over 10 hands it's unlikely that you'll get pocket aces even once. Over a year of regular play, it's almost certain that you will get pocket aces at least once. The reasoning is about as solid as it can possibly be - it's mathematically flawless.

[KUJustin]

madnak, I am in agreement with everything you just wrote. I guess I wasn't very clear so thank you for stating my position so well.

My question is, given that you can't use that reasoning in a game of poker, why would you be able to use it with anything else?

[madnak]

I'm not sure what you mean by "use it."

The fact that we have been unable to find life anywhere in the known universe is strong evidence that the spontaneous generation of life, if it happens, happens extremely rarely. Therefore, the fact that it has happened "only once" on our planet isn't meaningful. It would be stronger evidence for God if it had happened more than once, based on what we know.

Of course, greater clarity may indicate that conditions on Earth were much more conducive to life than it currently seems. In which case the question of "why didn't it happen more than once" might even be valid, but of course in such a case the likelihood of spontaneous generation would have to be accepted, so it would be a pyrrhic victory at best for the theists.

Now, the question of "why did it only happen once in the universe" might even be valid, but we'd need to know much more about the universe (including whether any extraterrestrial life does exist) in order to justify such questions. It's very possible that, crunching all the numbers, the mean expected instances of abiogenesis throughout the lifetime of the universe is exactly 1.

But that too just shunts the issue off, because the theists will say "wow, it must have been God that made a universe so perfect for life on earth."

Ultimately it's a non-issue in general, similar to the first cause debate. Neither side has an inherent advantage, and arguments on both sides tend to be fallacious. But the reasoning we're talking about in this thread is a valid refutation of the "why didn't it happen more than once" question. Maybe Snowball can weigh in, I thought that was the purpose of the argument, but based on your posts it seems you may have a different interpretation.

[KUJustin]

I hadn't really wanted to bring God into this as it seems likely to unnecessarily complicate things.

My question is: saying that you got 100 aces in a row because there are billions of planets doesn't make sense. so why does saying that life started here because there are billions of planets make sense?

I'm sure there's something very obvious that I'm missing, but I can't see it.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is: saying that you got 100 aces in a row because there are billions of planets doesn't make sense. so why does saying that life started here because there are billions of planets make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I see. Well, first there is some validity to that argument. As I said, the main wrench in the equation is that cheating happens at a rate that is known to be higher than that of such occurrences. Otherwise randomness would be the explanation, no question. I just got A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif3/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 8/images/graemlins/heart.gifQ/images/graemlins/club.gif, 5/images/graemlins/spade.gifK/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif9/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5/images/graemlins/club.gif2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, J/images/graemlins/spade.gif2/images/graemlins/club.gif, 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif8/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 8/images/graemlins/heart.gifQ/images/graemlins/club.gif, Q/images/graemlins/club.gifK/images/graemlins/spade.gif, and A/images/graemlins/spade.gifJ/images/graemlins/spade.gif. What are the chances of that? Very low. In fact, the chances are just as low as the chances of getting A/images/graemlins/spade.gifA/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gifA/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gifA/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gifA/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gifA/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gifA/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gifA/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gifA/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gifA/images/graemlins/heart.gif, and A/images/graemlins/spade.gifA/images/graemlins/heart.gif. Does that mean I cheated? No. There's a relatively low probability of someone cheating for my sequence of hands, so it makes sense to assume that (even though the chances of getting those hands are extremely low) my hands happened by chance. Of course, sometimes our individual judgments may not be rational - if someone gets 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif2/images/graemlins/club.gif ten times in a row, people might think of it as cheating or as a "sign," because it corresponds to an easily identifiable pattern and human perception is based on pattern recognition. But that sequence is no less likely than the one I just got.

In other words, saying that you got 100 aces in a row because those happened to be the cards you got does make perfect sense and is logically sound. Cheating merely distorts the distribution.

Second, awareness will only exist on planets with life. That is, rather than just happening to get 100 pairs of aces in a row, what we're doing is looking at a billion billion planets of poker players, and finding one where 100 pairs of aces show up in a row. That is unremarkable. It is logically fallacious to say "what are the chances of life happening on this planet," because "this planet" is defined based on its capacity to support life. The logically valid question is, "what are the chances of life happening somewhere in the universe?" It's likely Snowball was trying to implicitly point out this fallacy. Because the question is "waht are the chances of life happening somewhere in the universe," we don't even need to consider the concepts of my first paragraph. Because, while a specific sequence of hands developing over a specific range may be unlikely, life developing somewhere in the universe is very likely.

[hmkpoker]

A quick excel calculation shows that the odds of getting AA eight times in a row are 5.69034E+18 (about one in five billion billions). The odds of getting it one hundred times in a row are 2.7493E+234, which is about one in 2.75 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billions.

Party Poker has played what, a couple billion hands?

This is still astronomically improbable.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
A quick excel calculation shows that the odds of getting AA eight times in a row are 5.69034E+18 (about one in five billion billions). The odds of getting it one hundred times in a row are 2.7493E+234, which is about one in 2.75 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billions.

Party Poker has played what, a couple billion hands?

This is still astronomically improbable.

[/ QUOTE ]
True but the odds of a highly unlikely pattern occuring within those hands is high. So unless the extremely unlikely pattern is hypothesised before looking at the data, the finding of an very unlikely pattern isn't as significant as it may seem.

chez

[madnak]

Right, if someone predicts the pattern and it happens, yikes, even I might consider that a miracle. Completely different situation, however. And remember that every sequence of 100 hands is just as unlikely, actually a sequence of 100 specific hands is less likely than 100 AA hands. 1 in 1300^100, that's going to be at least E+300.

But I used 10^50,000 trials earlier to make a point - it's all relative.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A quick excel calculation shows that the odds of getting AA eight times in a row are 5.69034E+18 (about one in five billion billions). The odds of getting it one hundred times in a row are 2.7493E+234, which is about one in 2.75 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billions.

Party Poker has played what, a couple billion hands?

This is still astronomically improbable.

[/ QUOTE ]
True but the odds of a highly unlikely pattern occuring within those hands is high. So unless the extremely unlikely pattern is hypothesised before looking at the data, the finding of an very unlikely pattern isn't as significant as it may seem.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but the OP specifically referred to pocket aces. What consitutes an "unlikely" pattern is all dependent on the player.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
What consitutes an "unlikely" pattern is all dependent on the player.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the core of the issue, or, why it's a non-issue. I can say that there's one possible reality, the real reality, and that in one of the possible realities there is life on earth, and that therefore there's life on earth in one of one possible realities and the likelihood of life forming on earth is 100%. Ignore the physical qualms for the moment - the probabilistic assumptions are absurd, except when applied within a clearly-bounded context to support well-defined conclusions relative to that context. There is no such thing as "it is x likely that a random universe is capable of supporting life." That statement has no meaning.

Which is the ultimate reason that many refutations of theistic claims are valid. Of course, such claims are invalid even when made by atheists, but I believe Snowball was simply refuting KU here.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A quick excel calculation shows that the odds of getting AA eight times in a row are 5.69034E+18 (about one in five billion billions). The odds of getting it one hundred times in a row are 2.7493E+234, which is about one in 2.75 billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billions.

Party Poker has played what, a couple billion hands?

This is still astronomically improbable.

[/ QUOTE ]
True but the odds of a highly unlikely pattern occuring within those hands is high. So unless the extremely unlikely pattern is hypothesised before looking at the data, the finding of an very unlikely pattern isn't as significant as it may seem.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but the OP specifically referred to pocket aces. What consitutes an "unlikely" pattern is all dependent on the player.

[/ QUOTE ]
True but there was nothing special about aces for the op. He could just as well as said KK or 33 or ....

The problem is people compute the probability of the rare event occuring after it occurred and that gives a totally misleading answer. Then they scream fix or intelligent design.

chez

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I hadn't really wanted to bring God into this as it seems likely to unnecessarily complicate things.

My question is: saying that you got 100 aces in a row because there are billions of planets doesn't make sense. so why does saying that life started here because there are billions of planets make sense?

I'm sure there's something very obvious that I'm missing, but I can't see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the obvious thing you might be missing, if I understand your analogy, is that in poker it is understood that people *can* cheat, whereas in.. existence.. everyone is not in agreement that anything besides variance is an option in the first place. So the analogy is flawed in that respect. Even if, in theory, a God would be more likely to create us, you have to first believe there could possibly be a God. If you believe this, yes it is statistically more likely that it was Him and not variance. But the logic on most non-theists mind is that it can't possibly be anything but variance, so slim as it may be, it's still more likely than the notion that a Creator could exist. So to use the poker example, some people think getting dealt AA 100 times in a row is more likely because (in their mind) they are 100% sure the game is not rigged.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't want to continue the hijack of the other thread and I thought this was significant enough to merit it's own place. From Snowball in the Pride and Faith 50k thread:

[ QUOTE ]

If there are 100 billion billion planets in the universe, and ours has life whereas the others don't, isn't it reasonable to assume a chemical reaction with a similar improbability? BTW, the labwork trying to create life HAS created precursors for life. Give them another 100 billion billion trials, and they'll definitely surprise you with the results.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dawkins is probably a smarter guy than me, but is this argument legit? If I play poker with you and get pocket Aces 100 hands in a row, you're gonna quit playing with me and be damned pissed at my cheating.

So I propose there are billions times billions of planets and as such there are billions with poker playing people and so someone is bound to get pocket aces 100 hands in a row. I know my math assumptions are very rough, but aside from that what is wrong with that justification?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing. Unimagineably large numbers play havoc with human imagination.

Pick a small number for the probability that any cubic meter of primordial soup would produce a simple replicating molecule in any given second. How about a billion billion billion billion billion to one? That's 10^45:1 against. Is that small enough for you?

Then multiple that by the volume of the Earth's oceans (~1 billion cubic kilometers, 10^18 cubic meters), and the number of seconds available (say 3 billion years, or about 100 quadrillion seconds, 10^17 seconds), and multiply that by the number of possible planets (you'll have to pick one out of a hat; 100 billion will do fine, or 10^11), and then recall that this chance arrangement of molecules need only happen once. That's 10^46 "chances".

The numbers in this post are probably wildly inaccurate, but they illustrate an important concept. Just because something is mindbogglingly improbable doesn't mean that it won't happen with near certainty.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If you believe this, yes it is statistically more likely that it was Him and not variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make a good point, but this is untrue. To use an analogy, I roll a die 6 times. I comes up 3, 3, 6, 3, 1, 5. It landed on 3 three times, and it never landed on 2. If God exists, is that statistically likely to be an act of God?

Let's extend it even further - say I roll a die ten billion times, and it comes up 3 at least once. It is statistically likely that was an act of God?

This issue could get relatively deep, but it doesn't really matter. Because both sides can "push the issue back." Much as I'd love to see the theists against the wall of the big bang, it doesn't make a lot of difference who is in which position. If we prove that the generation of life was absolutely likely, then the theists will ask whether the conditions necessary for life were likely. And if we determine that those too were likely given the configuration of our universe, then theists will ask whether it was likely for the Big Bang to create such a configuration. And if we establish that it was, then the theists will ask how likely it was that the Big Bang would happen "the way it happened," or that it would happen at all. Etc, etc, etc. Because probabilistic evaluation requires some platform to rest on, the argument can continue to jump from "platform" to "platform" until it reaches a level at which probabilistic inquiry can no longer apply. Then the theists will be saying "it's so amazing God made this basic platform" and the atheists will be saying "this basic platform clearly shows that God isn't necessary" and it will all go on and on.

[HeavilyArmed]

I don't think the issue is fairly approached with any probabilistic methodology. The only relevant probabilites are 1 = p(life begins on earth) and 0 = evidence of life anywhere else, including the lab. There's nothing that allows you to modify the zero, no number of planets (since they are finite), nothing. If Titan is sterile and Europa as well you still can't modify that zero. Only one of two events allows modification, lab creation or an encounter.

Really, it's not much of a debate.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the issue is fairly approached with any probabilistic methodology. The only relevant probabilites are 1 = p(life begins on earth) and 0 = evidence of life anywhere else, including the lab. There's nothing that allows you to modify the zero, no number of planets (since they are finite), nothing. If Titan is sterile and Europa as well you still can't modify that zero. Only one of two events allows modification, lab creation or an encounter.

Really, it's not much of a debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, talk about getting off to a good start and then trolling it up.

[51cards]

[ QUOTE ]

The fact that we have been unable to find life anywhere in the known universe is strong evidence that the spontaneous generation of life, if it happens, happens extremely rarely. Therefore, the fact that it has happened "only once" on our planet isn't meaningful. It would be stronger evidence for God if it had happened more than once, based on what we know.


[/ QUOTE ]

Would we be able to detect microbes in the nearest star system? I didn't think we could. The universe could be literally teeming with life. I think all we can be relatively sure of is that intellegent life that wants to be seen is rare.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean by "use it."

The fact that we have been unable to find life anywhere in the known universe is strong evidence that the spontaneous generation of life, if it happens, happens extremely rarely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Erm, no. It's only evidence that we don't have the means to look! I can see that someone has 100 AAs in a row because the evidence for it is clear and easy to obtain. We are not even sure whether there was life on Mars or whether it exists in some form on Titan. These are part of our own solar system, let alone the rest of the "known universe".

I'm guessing that you are suggesting that life might be rare because we have not intercepted anything that we can unambiguously identify as the transmissions of a civilisation somewhat like ours. But we've only been making those transmissions ourselves for a little more than a hundred years. That means, it should be clear, that contemporaries would be invisible were they more than a hundred light years away. There are (rather obvious) reasons to believe that earlier emitters would be less likely than later ones, so that life that has evolved elsewhere may not yet be at a stage where it would be visible to us even if it were circling Proxima Centauri.

The known universe is considerably greater in extent that a hundred light years though! And we can see stars, not planets, in most of that universe. We are uncovering ever more planets but the proportion of those we'd expect to find that we have so far is vanishingly tiny.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The fact that we have been unable to find life anywhere in the known universe is strong evidence that the spontaneous generation of life, if it happens, happens extremely rarely. Therefore, the fact that it has happened "only once" on our planet isn't meaningful. It would be stronger evidence for God if it had happened more than once, based on what we know.


[/ QUOTE ]

Would we be able to detect microbes in the nearest star system? I didn't think we could. The universe could be literally teeming with life. I think all we can be relatively sure of is that intellegent life that wants to be seen is rare.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even this is absolutely wrong. All we can be relatively sure of is that intelligent life that wants to be seen *in our very close vicinity* is rare. There could be a dozen intelligent civilisations a thousand light years away and we would have no idea that they are there if they had not discovered means of making emissions before the past thousand years. A thousand light years is a *tiny* distance in the bigger universe.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The fact that we have been unable to find life anywhere in the known universe is strong evidence that the spontaneous generation of life, if it happens, happens extremely rarely. Therefore, the fact that it has happened "only once" on our planet isn't meaningful. It would be stronger evidence for God if it had happened more than once, based on what we know.


[/ QUOTE ]

Would we be able to detect microbes in the nearest star system? I didn't think we could. The universe could be literally teeming with life. I think all we can be relatively sure of is that intellegent life that wants to be seen is rare.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on the microbes. But if life is common that only supports my points.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
All we can be relatively sure of is that intelligent life that wants to be seen *in our very close vicinity* is rare.

[/ QUOTE ]

This just occured to me. We have found on our planet only one 'tree of life', one path of common descent. We have not found a second form of life that is unrelated to the one we know. It's had almost 4 billion years to develop and very well may not have.

This entire issue is so full of uncertainty and inestimable quantities and probabilities as to be little more than guess work. So I'll guess. Life is a huge longshot. Like 10^-70/planet huge. We'll prolly find it on Europa.