Re: historical trajectory

I haven't read this or the other two: "The Privileged Planet" or the
"Rare Earth", and since I am currently facing a backlog of books, I
probably won't for a while. But I am interested in comments from others
who have read them -- because such works would certainly fly in the face
of the proposed trajectory.

Regarding your comments below, David, if something is a physical law,
then how does it lead uniquely to something? If it is a physical law,
wouldn't it lead to the same thing every time certain raw materials and
conditions existed? Perhaps our conditions on this planet are/were
unique, hence, making us the only place in which such a universal law
could finally operate. But if it can be called a physical law or a
tendency to convergence, then we should expect to find life evolving on
every planet that is within certain temperature and compositional ranges
over a long duration. Any "rarity of life" theory then would be based
on a supposed rarity of certain ranges of conditions -- not on any
improbability of evolution. If, on the other hand, the author below
means that our development here is truly expected to be a unique event
(even given hospitable conditions elsewhere), then it would be curious
to think of this rare phenomenon as being a tendency or a law. It would
be more like the kind of earth-centered singularity that science
historically delights in shooting down. Given the enthusiastic pursuit
for an explanation of how self-replicating particles could begin in a
primordial muck (John Conway's mathematical universe is a wonderful game
to demonstrate such emergences in concept) or for showing how adaptable
existing ecologies can be to changing evolutionary pressures, it would
seem to me that what constitutes "sufficient conditions" should not be
too narrowly defined. I am surprised that evolutionary thinkers (if
that is what these authors are) would pursue the rare event theme. Are
there any scientific authors making that daring leap, using evolutionary
science to predict a plethora of life across the galaxy? I still think
popular culture would be on their side, and I wonder why science would
not be? Perhaps the nagging detail that we don't seem to have any
official contact or observations of other life scares away conservative
thinkers?

I know this has to be common rehash of what is in the books like the
ones you both recommend. (Indeed, what can we possibly discuss that
hasn't been discussed a thousand times before?) Since I won't be able
to read every book right away, I'll settle for the next best thing at
the moment and lazily hope for helpful commentary from those of you who
already have.

--merv

David Opderbeck wrote:

> To add to the reading list: I just started Simon Conway Morris'
> "Lifes' Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe." I have on
> order Steven Barr's "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith." Both of these
> are books that suggest humanity has some "special status," at least in
> the sense that evolutionary convergence or physical laws appear
> uniquely to lead to the development of us.
>
>
> On 1/26/06, *Bill Hamilton* <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com
> <mailto:williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> I sent this offline to Mervin, when I had intended to send it to
> the list. I am
> currently reading The Privileged Planet and Rare Earth. I'd
> welcome discussion
> of these two books on the list.
>
> --- Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com
> <mailto:williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> > Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:46:22 -0800 (PST)
> > From: Bill Hamilton < williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com
> <mailto:williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>>
> > Subject: Re: historical trajectory
> > To: Mervin Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net
> <mailto:mrb22667@kansas.net>>
> >
> > Read "Rare earth" by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, also "The
> privilieged
> > planet" by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards. Both books make
> the claim
> > that
> > complex life is very rare in the universe. Guillermo Gonzales is
> a professor
> > of
> > astronomy at Iowa State University and an ASA member. I wish we
> could entice
> > him to join this list.
> >
> > --- Mervin Bitikofer <mrb22667@kansas.net
> <mailto:mrb22667@kansas.net>> wrote:
> >
> > > Last night at K-State, Dr. Robert Kirshner - an astrophysicist
> from
> > > Harvard, gave a delightful presentation of the recent history of
> > > cosmology to a lay audience. At one point he made a comment
> which spurs
> > > this further reflection for me. He said something to the
> effect --
> > > science now finds any propositions perverse or distasteful
> which would
> > > accord special status to us or our corner of the universe. -
> a kind of
> > > Einstein's equivalency principle philosophically extended if
> you will.
> > >
> > > A significant source of triumphalist feelings for scientific
> thinkers
> > > over the last centuries has been the ongoing and successful
> dethronement
> > > of our "special status" feelings. First the earth isn't the
> center,
> > > then our sun isn't even the center, then our galaxy is but one
> of many,
> > > then Einstein tells us there is no center, and so forth. This
> makes up
> > > an impressive trajectory for which we should be excused if we
> found any
> > > deviation from it to be scientifically (and now
> philosophically) jarring.
> > >
> > > While this was at one time considered a hostile trajectory to
> church
> > > doctrine, we have long accepted how misreadings were read into
> scripture
> > > to support erroneous cosmologies. Now we can easily site other
> > > passages "What is man that you are mindful of him?" that fit
> more
> > > nicely with this current trajectory. But how does this assumed
> > > philosophy shape our predictions?
> > >
> > > One obvious way shows up in our science fiction. There is
> very little
> > > interstellar science fiction which does not have our galaxy
> peopled with
> > > other sentient beings - for good reasons. If we could somehow
> look at
> > > the rest of the universe and observe conclusively that we are
> ALONE,
> > > then this would be an extremely jarring end to this historical
> > > trajectory. Or even if we weren't the only life - but just
> the only
> > > recognizably sentient life, that would still be jarring. So
> our culture
> > > seems to have a fairly firm faith that we just "can't" be
> alone. It
> > > would be at odds the philosophy that now seems so familiar to
> us - we
> > > are nothing special. And this assumption is conveniently
> safe-guarded
> > > by the impossibility of ever proving this negation. If our
> abundant
> > > 'Trekian interstellar bioscape' fails to materialize, the
> expanding
> > > hugeness of the universe provides a fairly plausible explanation.
> > > Nevertheless, most theologians (I think) already feel
> defensive about
> > > the last few centuries and so wisely try not to read a committal
> > > position on this into the Bible. And I would agree that the
> lesson for
> > > us was necessary and well learned. It seems absurd (especially in
> > > hindsight) to have used scriptures thus.
> > >
> > > What are any of your thoughts on how long this trajectory
> holds or if it
> > > will ever stop? Do we hold out any well-grounded defiance of this
> > > pattern in spiritual terms? Or is science just delivering
> some much
> > > needed lessons about anthropocentric arrogance?
> > >
> > > --merv
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Bill Hamilton
> > William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> > 586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
> > "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com <http://mail.yahoo.com>
> >
>
>
> Bill Hamilton
> William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
> 586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
> "...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 26 20:55:56 2006