- #71
nismaratwork
- 359
- 0
mathematicsma said:That's a beautiful quote from Carl Sagan. I enjoyed it, and I think it's a powerful thought.
That said, I'm not sure what it has to do with winning or losing the cosmic lottery. I'm not trying to say that we should all be depressed, or think that life is terrible because it could be so much better. That's a completely different issue, one of optimism vs. pessimism. What I am saying is that there is no reason to think of what happened to us as remarkable.
Let me explain this further with an analogy (I heard this somewhere, but I can't remember who said it first): Suppose I deal you five cards out of a deck. You take one look at them, and say, "Remarkable! Look what I got! Two kings, a three, an eight, and a six! Now, the odds of this specific hand being dealt was just one out of 52!/(5!*47!). That's tiny!"
Of course, that's silly. I dealt you a hand, so you had to get something, Whatever you get, you can say that it's a miracle.
Often, religious people buttress their arguments by saying that the odds of the world evolving the way it did are infinitesimal. So the must have been divine intervention. That's like saying that there had to be divine intervention in the hand I dealt you-- how else could you have gotten such a rare hand?
My understanding is that when Hawking said that we won the cosmic lottery, he was trying to answer that religious argument. In other words, yes, it's rare, it's remarkable that the world evolved the way it did, but hey, we won the lottery of evolution! Good for us, sucks for anyone who would have lived on Venus! Those guys lost!
That's where I disagree. Yes, we won relative to potential people on Venus, but we lost relative to what could have been, and perhaps what exists elsewhere. We know of but a tiny bit of our universe. So yes, we can look at the planets around us, and say, "We won $1 million, they all lost." But that's myopic. We have no idea what the potential winnings were.
I could be wrong here, but I think DA was making a case for the apparent tolerances believed to be a factor, not a case for divine intervention. Your argument is correct in the sense that, if given an infinity of choices, any outcome is possible, BUT... there's nothing to suggest that we had such an infinite menu. It's possible that this universe has no cyclical element, and that there isn't more than one. It's possible that our universe isn't infinite in extent, which closes off more 'chances'.
You seem to be talking about which planet, star-system, or galaxy we ended up in being all we know, not necessarily the best. DA, I think, is talking about matters such as physical constants which allowed for the formation of matter other than a soup or something equally unfriendly to thermodynamic processes that we associate with life.