Life and the universe

[Leçi]

You have this universe, billions of galaxies, trillions of stars, even more planets. And in this solar system you have 8 planets, most of them are "dead" planets, they are all different, in size, mass, atmosphere, etc. but they're just balls of matter. But then there is this planet, which has life, plants, animals, they're all mini-worlds. Alot of the animals have their own brain and some are able to reason and think beyond survival.

So why are there so many "dead" planets? Infact, the conditions to have life on a planet are so demanding that probably most planets in the universe are "dead". And it seems that there's just one "special" event a planet can have: life. Maybe there are more special things in the universe but at the moment life is the highest point of complexity a world can have according to our findings. I'm not saying it's because of a God, it's just that life stands out in the universe, but why is that?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

In a universe so big, great in size and time span, that even the most unlikely of the events is likely to happen somewhere at some point.
The Universe doesn't take sides or makes decision, it just is, you will likely find big stars, small stars, with planets or without, planets with varying sizes and compositions (because they can be). One of them was bound to be just right, and as far as we know we are in one of those.

 

[Squawk]

A couple of points I'd make. First, I think it's incredibly presumptious to say that complex life only exists on earth in the solar system. When we've got a civilisation on Mars, deep see vessels on Europa etc and still no sign of life I'll start taking a slight interest, maybe.

Second, who decided life was precious? It is a subjective judgement. Why is life more precious than, say, a supernova?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Second, who decided life was precious? It is a subjective judgement. Why is life more precious than, say, a supernova?

I think that the OP is referring to the odds of life occuring, making sentient life within this universe a significant statistical anomalie - the most unlikely event, and the most complex event that could have occured. I would say that the odds and processes of life occuring are significantly more complex than the supernova, which means that Life (having a lower odds of occuring) has more (statistical) value than that of a supernova.

Supernova? Fucking brilliant event... I just think that people sometimes forget that life is, indeed, a complex process to come about by sheer happenstance.

 

[borrofburi]

it's just that life stands out in the universe, but why is that?

Life seems valuable because we're alive and therefore we care about it.

 

[Leçi]

it's just that life stands out in the universe, but why is that?

Life seems valuable because we're alive and therefore we care about it.

Ofcourse, but let's say all the other planets in our solare system, and most planets in the universe, have no life. The complexity of life is so unique, while Jupiter is quite complex with its superstorms and thick gassy atmosphere it's not as complex as life. It might have the same value (namely no real value) butthe uniqueness is quite obvious.

 

[borrofburi]

Your argument relies on two things: life is unique to earth, and life is uniquely complex. The first is unsubstantiated: we simply don't know how unique life is to earth. The second hinges upon the definition of complex. I will be surprised if you can find one that includes life but does not include, for example, crystals. In other words: no, I do not agree that life is "obviously" uniquely complex, anymore than I agree with Behe that it is "obvious" that life is irreducibly complex.

 

[Leçi]

Your argument relies on two things: life is unique to earth, and life is uniquely complex. The first is unsubstantiated: we simply don't know how unique life is to earth. The second hinges upon the definition of complex. I will be surprised if you can find one that includes life but does not include, for example, crystals. In other words: no, I do not agree that life is "obviously" uniquely complex, anymore than I agree with Behe that it is "obvious" that life is irreducibly complex.

Ofcourse it's all just speculation, I don't know how many planets there are, how many suns, what life needs, what kind of life is possible, etc. But the chances of life happening on a planet or as far as I know pretty small, but because of the supposedly large amount of stars and planet there's probably life on other planets too, just not in large quantities.

I just believe that earth is more complex than the other planets in our solar system because it has life. Life is nothing like the other features of other planets, Jupiter might have a complex atmosphere, Neptune is a big water planet, etc. Most planets are complex, but earth takes the cake in this solar system for having life that's starting to become self aware and not follow the rules of continuity (which is making sure your race continues to survive, like everything in the universe).

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

So why are there so many "dead" planets?

You make a point as to how complex Earth-life is before asking this question. I would argue it's irrelevant. After life forms, then it can evolve toward complexity.
You mention the other planets, but realise that they're all either too cold to be realistically expected to have life, or too hot. Within the area of the Solar System for which a planet would be comfortable with the biology we know can happen and thrive, there are two large bodies: Earth and the Moon. The Moon simply isn't massive enough to hold onto an atmosphere. One out of two isn't bad.

Now you might argue Venus and Mars are in the habitable zone, with a looser definition of the term. Venus has an atmosphere that is clearly unsupportive of life as we know it (though life cannot yet be ruled out, some parts in its upper atmosphere are rather friendly to life). Mars seems fairly dead now, but it used to be much more lively, with water, a global magnetic field, and so on. But alas, Mars' mass was too low to hold onto this. The magnetic field decayed, the atmosphere was exposed, so it got up and walked away.

You can see that there just isn't a lot of opportunities in our Solar System for life to form and thrive. The fact that it did might attest to the prevalance of life more than you may think. But it's still too early to tell. There's not many conclusions one can make with a single data point. But do consider the solar system for a moment.
Mars: Potential for life underground. If life thrived on Mars in the past, underground is where you would expect it to have migrated as the conditions there got tough.
Europa: Tidal heating + Icy upper layer = liquid water ocean. No idea what's in it, but it's fun to think about.
Enceladus: Tidal heating + unknown heat source + Icy composition = liquid water (though granted, the extent of it isn't known). Organic molecules have been found coming from Enceladus's geysers, however.
Titan: Full atmospheric processes, hydrospshere, liquid methane lakes, and so on. Complex hydrocarbons and organics reside on Titan. It may be that some primitive chemistry we might call life could happen here.

Life has not been ruled out at any of those four locations, and we've hardly addressed the question in a serious mannor.

Quite honestly, it's just too early to say that Earth is the only place in the Solar System with life. If it is, that still doesn't tell us anything about the distribution of life in the galaxy as a whole. If just one in every hundred solar systems has a life-bearing planet, that's still a few billion life-bearing planetary systems. On the other hand, if we find life at Europa or Enceladus or somewhere else in the Solar System, we know that this solar system managed to produce two worlds with life. Suddenly the prospects for finding life elsewhere look a lot better.

Remember life is a chemical process. The chemical and thermal environment from planet to planet varies. Those planets with the right chemistry will be more likely to give rise to life.

I just believe that earth is more complex than the other planets in our solar system because it has life. Life is nothing like the other features of other planets, Jupiter might have a complex atmosphere, Neptune is a big water planet, etc. Most planets are complex, but earth takes the cake in this solar system for having life that's starting to become self aware and not follow the rules of continuity (which is making sure your race continues to survive, like everything in the universe).

When you consider the planets as a whole, Earth is almost identical to Venus, sort-of like Mars but ten times as massive, and metal poor compared to Mercury. The gas giants are gas-dominated, and the ice giants are water-dominated. What you're describing reflects what goes on at the uppermost < 1% of the planet, within that thin blanket of gases gravitationally bound to its surface.

 

[StevenBee]

I disagree with your assumption that life is rare. Truly, we do not have enough sample data to attest to that. Contrarily, we are all but certain that there was life on Mars. And that's the first place we looked. Just that one fact alone, that our planet, and our neighbour 100 million miles away from us had life shows that unless it's a statistical abaration, life is almost certainly common. So we have 2 in our solar system, and the latest exoplanetary research tells us that planets are common around stars. With just that information alone logic dictates (though again, without much certainty because of our small sample size) that our Universe is teaming with life - at least at the single-cell'd level. Even if it's only one in millions upon millions of stars that have life (and again remember, TWO planets in the 1 solar system we know of have had it, and we've barely even begun to look), then there are billions upon billions upon billions of places with the good stuff.

 

[Unwardil]

To answer the OP's question of 'Why is life so incredibly complicated, moreso than any other process we can observe' I think it's partially to do with complexity begetting further complexity, but mostly I think it's due to our, relatively, microscopic perspective on the issue.

To Clarify;

The complex things that a planet does take eons in the unfolding. If we could watch a planet in timelapse so that we observe it's entire life cycle over the span of a day, we would probably remark on what an incredibly, almost living thing it appears to be. Planets tend to have very clearly definable ages, they go through innumerable cycles, they have drama in their lives, appear to have mood swings (if our own planet is anything to go by, these can actually come on pretty suddenly) and then they must inevitably expire. The whole process is highly complex and has as many factors as those that make up any living organism, it just happens much much MUCH slower.

So if you're going to define complexity in a kind of, to steal a video game term here, actions per minute, yeah, life is pretty complex, but if the definition incorporates the number of variables affecting an outcome, no, I don't think it is especially complex, it's just a lot faster so you get those variables in a much shorter space of time.

 

[MRaverz]

Complex things are just a collection of simple things, so what's the fuss?

 

[Demojen]

You have this universe, billions of galaxies, trillions of stars, even more planets. And in this solar system you have 8 planets, most of them are "dead" planets, they are all different, in size, mass, atmosphere, etc. but they're just balls of matter. But then there is this planet, which has life, plants, animals, they're all mini-worlds. Alot of the animals have their own brain and some are able to reason and think beyond survival.

So why are there so many "dead" planets? Infact, the conditions to have life on a planet are so demanding that probably most planets in the universe are "dead". And it seems that there's just one "special" event a planet can have: life. Maybe there are more special things in the universe but at the moment life is the highest point of complexity a world can have according to our findings. I'm not saying it's because of a God, it's just that life stands out in the universe, but why is that?

I disagree with the assertion that life is the highest reference point for complexity a planet can possess. Titan has a pretty complex environment without any signs of life. Hell, even comets present pretty complicated cycles. What measurement tool are you using that makes life complex? If your model uses the intricacy of layered systems working together, as a measurement of complexity, I'd argue that falls flat even on this planet as the entire foundation for the existence of life exists in a system far more intricate and complex then mere carbon based life.

The conditions required to allow life to develop are not necessarily more complex then the systems that developed it. If you change the purpose of a mouse trap, from a trap to a tie clip, it is not a less complex mouse trap for being a tie clip. It is just different.

I personally think that chemistry is more complex then biology, but in the grand scheme of things, their degrees of separation are negligible.

 

[Squawk]

Second, who decided life was precious? It is a subjective judgement. Why is life more precious than, say, a supernova?

I think that the OP is referring to the odds of life occuring, making sentient life within this universe a significant statistical anomalie - the most unlikely event, and the most complex event that could have occured. I would say that the odds and processes of life occuring are significantly more complex than the supernova, which means that Life (having a lower odds of occuring) has more (statistical) value than that of a supernova.

Supernova? Fucking brilliant event... I just think that people sometimes forget that life is, indeed, a complex process to come about by sheer happenstance.

I disagree actually. My supernova example served to highlight the physical constants that we all know and recognise in the Universe. The "chance" that they are as they are is impossible to figure out right now since we don't understand their origin. Perhaps it was guaranteed, perhaps we've hit upon an infintesimally small probability but somehow lucked out.

Personally I suspect that life is just another emergent property of the constants that make up our Universe. Complex, sure, but still just an emergent property. The true wonder is that the constants exist, and that is possibly only wonderous because the answer is "I don't know".

 

[lrkun]

You have this universe, billions of galaxies, trillions of stars, even more planets. And in this solar system you have 8 planets, most of them are "dead" planets, they are all different, in size, mass, atmosphere, etc. but they're just balls of matter. But then there is this planet, which has life, plants, animals, they're all mini-worlds. Alot of the animals have their own brain and some are able to reason and think beyond survival.

So why are there so many "dead" planets? Infact, the conditions to have life on a planet are so demanding that probably most planets in the universe are "dead". And it seems that there's just one "special" event a planet can have: life. Maybe there are more special things in the universe but at the moment life is the highest point of complexity a world can have according to our findings. I'm not saying it's because of a God, it's just that life stands out in the universe, but why is that?

I don't know dude. I honestly don't have an accurate answer for this question. I do have theories, but they are not based on any evidence. What I'm saying is, it's purely speculation, and due to my hyperactive imagination.

My guess is life came to be because the circumstances were right. I don't know what that circumstance is, but it must have, to my imagination, allowed life to occur. Just imagine the water cycle. Heat, rain clouds, rain, then back again. So, something to that effect must have triggered what causes life to exist. (of course, this is purely guess work at my part. )

With respect to dead planets, I also have a funny gues, purely based on speculation and imagination. Our ancestors started out at the last plannet, having achieved the highlight of their civization they consumed everything. To survive, they genetically enhanced themselves to live on to the next. Again the same happens until they're on earth. >.< Hehe.

---

Topics like these are nice mental exercises. >.<

 

[Laurens]

I disagree with your assumption that life is rare. Truly, we do not have enough sample data to attest to that. Contrarily, we are all but certain that there was life on Mars. And that's the first place we looked. Just that one fact alone, that our planet, and our neighbour 100 million miles away from us had life shows that unless it's a statistical abaration, life is almost certainly common. So we have 2 in our solar system, and the latest exoplanetary research tells us that planets are common around stars. With just that information alone logic dictates (though again, without much certainty because of our small sample size) that our Universe is teaming with life - at least at the single-cell'd level. Even if it's only one in millions upon millions of stars that have life (and again remember, TWO planets in the 1 solar system we know of have had it, and we've barely even begun to look), then there are billions upon billions upon billions of places with the good stuff.

I hadn't heard that there is evidence that life once inhabited Mars. Could you provide linkies?

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

There is no evidence to date that life has ever existed on Mars.

You'd think it would have gotten more press coverage if such evidence were indeed found (and I mean actual press, not FOX or Pravda or something similar).

 

[Guardian Angel]

A couple of points I'd make. First, I think it's incredibly presumptious to say that complex life only exists on earth in the solar system. When we've got a civilisation on Mars, deep see vessels on Europa etc and still no sign of life I'll start taking a slight interest, maybe.

Second, who decided life was precious? It is a subjective judgement. Why is life more precious than, say, a supernova?

Do you not find life amazing?

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

A couple of points I'd make. First, I think it's incredibly presumptious to say that complex life only exists on earth in the solar system. When we've got a civilisation on Mars, deep see vessels on Europa etc and still no sign of life I'll start taking a slight interest, maybe.

Second, who decided life was precious? It is a subjective judgement. Why is life more precious than, say, a supernova?

Do you not find life amazing?

His point was that calling life "amazing" or "precious" was entirely subjective. Regardless of whether one views life as "amazing", it has no impact on it's likelihood outside this planet, which is the subject of the thread.

 

[Squawk]

Do you not find life amazing?

Yes