Q&A: The Argument Outside the Laws
The Argument Outside the Laws
Question
Hello, honorable Rabbi,
I have a question for you regarding the argument outside the laws.
Indeed, the specific constants that exist in the world made the development of life possible. However, there is a collection of different constants that exist throughout the universe. If so, probabilistically it may make sense that on some planet with suitable constants, life would arise. After all, we are not talking specifically about our planet, but about one out of all the planets. So perhaps it is not probabilistically surprising that in one case it did in fact happen, here on Earth.
And if I am mistaken and the constants are indeed identical throughout the universe, then the question still stands, because it makes sense that in one of the encounters between the laws and one of the planets, life would emerge, out of all the planets that exist.
And I do not mean to invoke the argument that infinitely many universes were created and destroyed, or exist in parallel, but rather that in our universe, out of all the planets, it makes sense that the laws created life in one specific place. And therefore the argument of parallel universes that we do not know falls away.
Thank you!
Answer
The constants (like the laws of physics) are probably identical throughout the universe. A system of laws that allows the formation of life, even if life arises on only one planet out of multitudes, is very rare. Therefore your argument is not relevant. In the overwhelming majority of systems of laws, life or complex creatures would not arise on any planet, simply because it would not be possible (there would be no chemistry or biology).
Discussion on Answer
From what I understood, "not possible" here means not one in a billion, but zero in a billion. Simply not technically possible.
Why is it not technically possible? The question is simply how many planets these laws apply to. The more planets there are, the greater the chance that life will arise on one of them. If there are infinitely many planets, then on one of them any set of laws will create life (sorry for bringing infinity into this). What I mean is that, as I understand it, the question simply depends on the number of planets, which would increase the odds. And I would be glad if you could explain where I am going wrong.
Most systems of laws *cannot* create life! It has nothing to do with the number of planets in the universe. (Because gravity is too strong and everything turns into black holes, because all atoms are unstable and keep breaking apart, and many other reasons you can think of.)
Thank you. So just to clarify:
-A random system of laws cannot create life even if there are infinitely many planets.
-Our system of laws managed to create life, even though this was one planet out of infinitely many.
-It is still something rare, and therefore we need to understand why this system of laws, which succeeded in creating life (even if only on one planet), is the one that exists here and not another one that would not sustain life at all.
Am I being precise?
Thank you!
Precisely. That is exactly what I wrote.
Arik, beyond what they already answered you, I have to point something out.
You wrote: "In our universe, out of all the planets, it makes sense that the laws created life in one specific place."
Why do you think so? Life, even a single living cell, is complex on an unbelievable level; various biologists compare it to a computer. Now ask yourself: if you found a computer on one of the planets in the galaxy, would you conclude that someone created it? Quite obviously yes. Why? After all, there are masses of planets, so of course a computer would form on one of them! Rather, intuition tells us that the level of complexity of a computer and of a living cell is so great that even an imaginary number of planets does not make it plausible, unless the number is larger by orders of magnitude that are impossible even to grasp, something approaching infinity, and not the current number of planets.
In addition, do not forget that the overwhelming majority of planets are not suitable for life at all in terms of several crucial necessary parameters: temperature, atmospheric composition, water, and so on.
The emergence of life on Earth was so rapid relative to the complexity involved that scientists are searching for mechanisms to explain the rapid process that occurred. Those mechanisms are, of course, further support for the evidence for God, who provided such mechanisms, which give a high probability for the formation of a living sequence as opposed to the other possibilities that could have existed.
I will quote from an article by Dr. Iris Fry: "Another problem is connected to the 'timetable' of the process by which life came into being. Until recently, people thought in terms of very long periods of time that were available for the process by which the first living systems came into being. This, as stated, helped the claim that an initial key molecule could have arisen by chance. It now turns out that the time window during which life most likely emerged was very short relative to the age of the Earth, which was formed about four and a half billion years ago. During roughly the first half-billion years, the data indicate that because of very high temperatures and intensive meteorite bombardment, neither the formation of life nor its survival was conceivable (some therefore argue that life developed on the ocean floor). However, according to fossil evidence, living creatures whose bodies were built as cells already existed about 3.6 billion years ago. In many ancient rocks, layered structures called stromatolites have been found, similar to structures produced today by large colonies of bacteria. Fossils of bacteria have also been found in ancient rocks in Australia and Greenland. Some researchers argue, on the basis of measuring the ratios of different carbon isotopes, that carbon-fixing life through photosynthesis already existed 3.8 billion years ago. The conclusion is that the time window lasted no more than half a billion years, and some say much less than that, truly a geological 'blink of an eye.' It is therefore clear that if we do not want to assume that the origin of life involved some kind of 'miracle,' any reasonable scenario must be based on rapid mechanisms with a relatively high probability."
Her full article is here: http://telem.openu.ac.il/courses/c20237/lifegenesis-g.htm
All the best.
Thank you, Rabbi.
You wrote that "simply because it would not be possible." What do you mean? Statistically, is it not possible for a random system of laws to create life on one out of billions of planets? In the end, if there is an enormous number of planets, it does not sound all that far-fetched, does it?