- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
1) I wonder why he is not using carbon atoms or hydrocarbon atoms. An experiment like that reminds me of an experiment that starts with primordial soup and ends up with amino acids or something like that.
2) I disagree that you cannot talk about the fitness of a whale compared to algae. The fitness of any life form is based on whether its population is growing or shrinking. Another way of saying that is whether the species has more energy available than it consumes. Of course most species quickly reach a pseudo equilibrium, which is called the Malthusian Trap. I make this point in my book.
3) I think he has some interesting ideas of where life comes from. I do not see how it applies to my book. My main concern (hope) was to strengthen my argument between entropy (2nd law) and diminishing returns in economics. Does this suggests to you how this can be done?
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/21...
It is a shame that his politics are completely incongruent with his economics.
I've only had time to look at 20 minutes of his talk so far.
Regarding 3), there has always been a seeming contradiction between a thermodynamic (mostly entropic) driving force toward equilibrium and the fact that life really doesn't ever get to equilibrium. One key is the idea that living things harvest sunlight.
As for the comparison to economics, the video doesn't add much; however, this video could be one of two key missing puzzle pieces to your book's argument.
BTW I am aware of Schrodinger's thoughts on entropy and life. I was very happy to find it, but further research showed his ideas do not stand up and he was saying something a little different than I first thought.
Seriously, this is a far more satisfying explanation of a number of conundra that I have been feebly trying to understand over the past 20 years. It is as least self-consistent. I don't think I will ever be satisfied (at least in this life, whether there is an afterlife or not) with any explanation of life, its origins, etc. I have been investigating evidence that might support an ancient alien visitation or colonization of Earth recently. Some things, like construction of the Sphinx or Stonehenge, just don't seem possible otherwise. If a god exists, I don't think he/she/it would be anything close to what man might expect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91D5UAz...
What is discussed in "A New Physics Theory of Life" is an interesting, albeit far from conclusive, hypothesis of abiogenesis. It does answer some questions better than I have seen before, but there are still major unexplained phenomena that I and others will always want an explanation for.
A simpler universe without life would have been beyond my limited brain capacity, and yet still would have been demonstrative of an amazing intelligence.
I worked on Monte Carlo (probabilistic) simulation enough many year ago to realize that random, thoughtless occurrences, even if they give an adaptation advantage (making them no longer strictly random), are RARE.
No rational person rejecting the supernatural believes that "a thoughtless, random explanation can be made for the sophistication of the universe" -- or that the universe is "sophisticated" or that explanations are "thoughtless". Note the loaded terminology built into the alleged implication.
Everything does what it does because of what it is. It has an identity and acts accordingly, in accordance with external factors in its environment which differ in different contexts. Animistic causes versus the random is a false alternative. The notion that Darwinian evolution is based on a metaphysical randomness with infinitesimal probabilities is a misrepresentation promoted by religionists; it is not Darwin's theory and is not the modern theory of evolution.
Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, 1986, explains how the "randomness" in genetic mutation does not mean literally completely random, but rather refers to the relatively small number of possibilities determined by different kinds of causes that arise in different contexts. Cells do what they do under different influences because of what they are. The "randomness" is epistemological, not metaphysical. It refers to the fact that we don't know all the secondary causes which are present in different situations. David Bohm makes the same point about unknown secondary causes in his 1957 Causality and Chance in Modern Physics.
These are not new ideas. Anyone who has ever tried to design a simple mechanical device, let alone complex machinery, from first principles expressed mathematically knows that only limited accuracy is attainable due to the myriad unknown factors always present but which do not dominate the principle causal factors. It does not mean that the complex mathematically unpredicted actions of the machine must be created by a god to avoid metaphysical randomness with infinite possibilities that are too remote to occur.
The theological attribution of causes to the gods is a primitivist lack of understanding of identity and its corollary, causality, not a rational alternative to the inexplicably random. We first experience the concept of causal efficacy through the effects of our own actions. Grasping the principle that things act in accordance with their nature as opposed to some consciousness being directing everything is a more sophisticated conceptual understanding that comes later. It is the basis of science. Primitive people lack that understanding and remain arrested at the level of animistic "explanations" of everything they can't explain in simple perceptual terms. Everything from fire to the weather is claimed to be caused by the gods.
The "argument from design" as an alleged proof of a god is a very old logical fallacy that accomplishes and explains nothing. Not only is it no explanation, being in terms of a speculated, unknowable supernatural realm, it replaces the problem of not knowing an explanation of something complex with a fantasy of a cause in terms of a far more complex speculated entity that isn't known or explained, leading to a much larger problem -- if explanation was the purpose at all. Resorting to "god did it" mysticism as the ultimate default position in the face of the not known is neither science nor a "rational" substitute for Darwinian evolution. It replaces not knowing with deliberate ignorance on a much grander scale.
When an atheist can explain the purposes behind the origin of life forms, the origin (and more importantly, the arrangement) of matter into the way we see it, then I will be interested. Consequently, one of my areas of research is self-assembly of nanostructures.
I have to point out that the fallacy you are committing is to assume that there is "purpose" to an evolving reality.
Some reading of history of ancient philosophy taught me that looking for purpose leads to theology and looking for causes leads to science.
It seems to me that people who have hard time saying "I do not know" end up preferring a god's will as an explanation.
Just my opinion.
All the best.
I am assuming that there is a purpose to an evolving reality. I don't think that is a fallacy, however. Our lives are a series of choices, among them to create or not to create. What I have a hard time accepting is that the universe would exist at all, were it not for some being's choice to create. The default would be that nothing would exist were it not for the conscious decision of a great mind.
Looking for a purpose in a created object, followed by an attempt to replicate that created object or at least determine how it functions, is an attempt to understand the workings of a great mind. This is why I compare myself to Quentin Daniels.
It is good to hear from you again, Maritimus.
There is no rational presumption of "purposes behind the origin of life forms" beyond things behaving and evolving in accordance with their nature and that of their surroundings. Conceptually identifying and classifying what things are and isolating causes to explain action is not teleology, whether you call it "god" or anything else.
Purpose requires consciousness. Consciousness is one aspect of existence; it is aware of existence not its creator. To reverse the role and proclaim that a conscious purpose must direct the nature of existence is the fallacy of the stolen concept.
No one needs to explain any presumed "intelligent purpose". The burden of proof and explanation is on he who asserts the positive. There is no rational presumption or meaning of "higher purpose", to be accepted in advance that someone else is obliged to explain.
Moreover, atheism is asserting a "positive" statement that there is no being of intelligence responsible for what exists. There is a burden of proof to that statement as well. The only claim that does not require proof is agnosticism. This is a battle that you and your supporters are in error about, and the one major failing in the otherwise fine logic of Ms. Rand.
No matter how many people give thumbs up to your argument, I am perfectly willing to stand on the island by myself and be correct. That was the case several times for me in grade school, and will be true again in several of my endeavors.
An interesting statement used by many however complexity does not equal higher intelligence, and if one makes that argument the burden of proof is upon them to prove how the two are connected.
Moving on to how atheism needs to provide proof for the statement of the fact that there is no intelligence for what exists, there is in fact no proof needed for this statement. It is actually setup to receive proof to the contrary, it is asserting what knowledge our universe has given us and the universe has yet to give any proof for a higher intelligence, therefore we can naturally assume that there is not one unless proof is provided otherwise.
Agnosticism is anti-logic, where no matter what evidence is provided one has no idea about anything still. You are correct it requires no proof because agnosticism is in fact not a statement at all contrary to the two most popular understandings, (god, no god).
In summary the irony in this argument is that by assuming that there is a higher intelligence it is actually the only one that requires a burden of proof because one is assuming that there is intelligence, while not having any evidence to proof the statement or refute statements to the contrary since like what has already been elaborated on there is no proof to give.
no compelling evidence to ponder. Like there is no proof for witches or goblins or fairies
While there is no proof for witches or goblins or fairies, there is a universe that exists, along with all of its intricate details on the nano, the micro, the milli, the kilometer scales all the way up to the size of the universe. How did that get there? Is not every offspring of every intelligent life form the result of a volitional, conscious decision of its predecessors? Such an offspring has been created. In fact, what in the universe was not created?
When I reject the assertion, I'm saying "I've never seen any evidence of that." I'm not saying it never could have happened or I'm on the fence about whether it happened. I've just seen nothing like that.
I think you're saying the nature of the universe suggests a conscious architect and that's the evidence. That actually feels right to me too, but then I consider that if things hadn't been just right I wouldn't be here wondering about it.
Yes the "default" position is to acknowledge that you don't know that which you don't know, and to reject gibberish claiming otherwise.
Why do you say that? Isn't it just the anthropic principle? It's unremarkable that humans would find themselves in a universe that seems tailor made for humans to develop in it.
Positing a supernatural (or space alien) planner for the universe is not looking for a rational cause. The notion of an event "without a rational cause", i.e., without a cause, makes no sense to begin with. Neither does decreeing arbitrary thresholds like "10^-30" for a speculated causeless event, which meaningless premise "would have to be considered a miracle" requiring a mystic "plan" to avoid endorsing miracles. It is all arbitrary, meaningless manipulation of floating abstractions.
"When any exceedingly rare event occurs, one has to look for a rational cause. "
I just don't see that. This is like someone saying the fact that many people will have a dream that appears to predict the future is cause for further research into ESP. It's exceedingly rare that one dream should predict a future event, but it's expected that in a world of billions of people some dreams will predict future events. It would be worthy of investigation is the premonitions never occurred.
This is the anthropic principle. One in a universe, time, and place that supports sentient life will sentient life appear and possibly ask, "Is it just a coincidence that everything's so perfect for us to develop here?" All the times and places that don't support the development of sentient life will have no sentient life there to wonder about.
There are no metaphysical "accidents". The claim that the universe is tailor made FOR anything is baseless and meaningless. Things do what they do because of their identity. Causality is not teleological.
When you have tried to create life as I am currently doing, and you begin to realize all of the constraints, any one of which is fatal, you will eventually realize that Earth evolving into a planet suitable for intelligent life by a series of accidents is unlikely.
The earth evolving in a way suitable for life is not "unlikely". It is not an "accident" at all. The term "unlikely" does not pertain to it at all. Metaphysical "likely" versus "unlikely" is irrelevant and meaningless. Life requires no supernatural explanation as a "plan" to avoid endorsing an "accident", all of which is just as meaningless as talking about "odds" of what happened by the nature of things. Once again, "planning" versus metaphysical "odds" is a _false alternative_. Your repeated falling back on "accident" as the only alternative to "design" in a "plan", followed by claiming there "must" therefore be a "plan" is a fallacious argument.
There is a sense in which humans are remarkable, but it's not because anything was tailor made for us. If the universe were not suitable for human development we would not have developed. That we have does not imply an animistic "plan".
Feynman also discussed the notion of probability of a particular sequence of digits on a license plate and how it had to be some sequence with 100% certainty with no surprise.
Yes! The opposite of that is the Ayn Rand villains who look to their group to work out what they think.
I do not need you, or anyone else.
No!!! I am calling you **the opposite** of a Ayn Rand villain, i.e. like an Ayn Rand hero in this one respect.
I'm saying you're the opposite of a villain b/c you're not swayed by group approval.
It is _not_ irrational to say that the universe has done what it does because of what it is rather than the false alternative of "chance" versus whatever is your latest substitute for a god you won't name but now speculated as space aliens. That things have identity and act accordingly is the basis for scientific explanation. It doesn't provide it automatically, it makes it possible. It doesn't mean that there are things we don't know and have yet to learn and is not a substitute for trying to learn. It does not mean that "things happen" and nothing else is required to understand it.
You reject atheism -- the rejection of your fantasies that are meaningless and explain nothing -- for not providing you with an explanation of something that no one knows. So what? There are a lot of things you don't know, and a lot you never will. Your demand for an explanation that no one has is not a reason to reject the dismissal of your fallacious speculations. Your "must be a plan for the universe", like any "god did it" pseudo explanation, is not a default fall-back position and provides no explanation of anything. It is worthless mysticism.
I will offend many in this forum with this next statement. AR did not go far enough in her logic. To end with "existence exists" and not search for a cause of such existence would be like Hank and Dagny finding the motor and then not searching for its inventor. The search for the inventor is not mysticism. Mysticism is a belief in something that one cannot prove conclusively to others. The difference between you and me, ewv, is that my intellectual curiousity to adequately explain the origin of the universe and the origin of life has not been satisfied. Yours has, and I am OK with that.
Yes, but I admire the aspect of someone sticking to what he thinks in face of criticism.
"is no argument defending a fallacious position"
I don't agree with his position, but it doesn't bother me because it doesn't appear to make scientifically falsifiable claims. He's not saying god is influencing the outcome of experiments or people's lives.
Ayn Rand's support of the virtue of independence was integrated with other virtues like rationality and objectivity. She did not endorse the arbitrary in the name of independence.
That there is "much that we do know" stands alone. It is not what you are claiming when you assert a supernatural "plan". When something is not known then stop trying to rationalize what "must" be. You don't know and that's it. The onus of proof is on he asserts the positive, and that applies to assertions about what is claimed to be "possible" in reality.
When one doesn't know he doesn't know and stops talking about the alleged nature of what he don't know. He doesn't assert that there "must" be a "plan" and does not indulge in fantasies about space aliens somehow explaining the nature of the universe.
That is a false alternative as has already been explained. Creationism versus random is a false alternative. You have previously been referred to Dawkins' explanation of that in Darwinian evolution. I did not contradict my own argument. You contradict it through unresponsive repetition.
A universe with far fewer stars and planets without life would have been beyond all of our abilities and beyond most (I would argue all) of our comprehension as to how to create.
As someone who makes things for a living as a materials scientist specializing in 3D printing, I struggle to make the tools that make creation here on Earth possible. I am barely intelligent enough to appreciate the sets of differential equations required to define orbital mechanics, the predator/prey relationships between species, etc., let alone the proper levels of each of the control variables of something as complicated as the Earth's weather. What Prof. England's model does and dbhalling's upcoming book will do is account for the seeming contradiction between a universe proceeding toward a state of maximum entropy and the persistence of life forms bent on avoiding such a state. The ability to transform energy (such as via light harvesting) into useful life functions, whenever implemented, acts as a disturbance in the set of differential equations of life that temporarily delay our equilibrium state ... of death.
The "argument from design" known as the teleological argument for a higher intelligence (Notice that I did NOT refer to such an intelligence as "god".) is one that has often been dismissed by atheists, but not debunked. When I see humans terraforming planets and seeding worlds with life, I will say that humanity has gotten 1% of the way toward what happened "naturally" (said with dripping sarcasm).
I am quite willing to say that evolution, Darwinian selection, and what Prof. England discuss was part of a master plan, but I will never say that what we know was created by a cosmic series of fruitful accidents without a plan. I see no mysticism in my understanding whatsoever. I readily admit that I don't understand how things evolved completely. In closing, as I have said before, the default position on the atheism/theism debate should be neither. Both have illogical premises.
There is no unexamined premise denying purpose in existence. Purpose is an attribute of consciousness, not existence, and the concept of purpose logically presupposes both concepts in the proper hierarchy. To attribute purpose as inherent in all forms of existence whether or not man-made is a misuse of the concepts and their logical dependency. It commits the fallacy of the stolen concept several ways at once.
You really should ready Ayn Rand's non-fiction instead of making incorrect claims about premises she allegedly did not examine.
To jump from "Everything that you, I, and anyone else creates has a purpose" to "It would be completely beyond reason to say that a star, the earth, water, or anything else would just exist ... with no purpose" is an arbitrary and contradictory leap invoking primitive animism asserting a primacy of consciousness over existence, defying the meaning of all the concepts employed.
Intentionally "loading the terminology" with animism in your contradictory speculation of whatever you want to call god, but won't name, and built into your conclusion only emphasizes the fallacy. The burden of explanation and proof is on you when you make assertions. Theism, whether or not acknowledged by using the word "god", is not a rational "premise" and is not inherent in the concept of existence. It is meaningless and contradictory in its misuse of basic concepts turned on their heads and has no evidence supporting it even as a rationalistic floating abstraction. "Premises" are not to be made arbitrarily and without regard to the meaning and hierarchical dependency of concepts based on our perception of reality.
Rejecting theism, which is the meaning of atheism, is not an equally irrational premise. It is also not a primary. It is a simple consequence of the burden of proof principle rejecting the arbitrary and the conceptually meaningless.
Contrary to your assertion, the "argument from design", especially in the crude form of your intentional building in the conclusion, has been refuted and explained many, many times -- right here in this forum and long before Ayn Rand. You really should read about the history of western philosophy before making assertions about what you claim has never been done. Classical "proofs of god" can even be found explained as examples of rationalistic logical fallacies.
You should also read the science, including the Dawkins book already recommended above. Darwinian evolution is not consistent with a "master plan". There were several hypotheses of evolution before Darwin and he specifically formulated his principles in opposition to any teleology. Darwinian evolution as part of a "master plan" is a contradiction in terms.
Misuse of the concepts of "accident", "odds", "fruitful", "purpose", "plan", etc., followed by neglect of the onus of proof principle and assertions of a supernatural planner (or purpose without a planner) you can't even name, let alone meaningfully relate to reality or prove, certainly is mysticism. Cloaking it in appeals to being a materials scientist who understands differential equations, entropy and the rest does not make your metaphysical rationalizations scientific or rational. Your assertions are loaded with crude fallacies and naive misconceptions about philosophy and the science of evolution. You are out of our realm, but one does not have to be an expert or have above average intelligence to understand this. But it takes reading and understanding, not speculating on a web forum in terms no better than a college dorm room BS session.
The existence of the universe does not "require" explanation, somehow demanding fantasizing what cannot be obtained by conceptual knowledge. The term "explanation" does not pertain to existence as such at all, as has been explained previously and which you continue to ignore. We seek as much explanation of as many _aspects_ of consciousness, life, the physical universe of planets, galaxies, etc. and their evolution as we can attain; omniscience is not possible, not a "requirement", and not license to leap into the mystical in the absence of the impossible.
Nothing in your laboratory, nothing, rationally "suggests" anything other than the nature of knowledge as finite and based on our perception of reality, "suggests" a supernatural planning by a god not acknowledged to be a god or supernatural, or "suggests" arbitrary non-sequiturs claiming there is intelligent design of either the physical universe or existence as such -- whether or not claimed to somehow be outside of existence in non-existence, i.e., nowhere because there is no such thing as that which does not exist. Your mystical creationism does not come from any laboratory. They are intertwined only as floating abstractions in your imagination.
Created objects that we make exist because of the will and the mind (wisdom and intelligence) of us, their creators. Are we to believe that something as massive as a universe is an effect that happened without a cause? To believe that requires more faith than I am capable of. It is utterly ridiculous and should be rejected out of hand, period.
The bizarre assertions of imagined space aliens now introduced are just as arbitrary as the rest of your claims and do not deserve or require further discussion of what "planned" your space aliens or the rest of the contradictions and shear arbitrariness, all clinging to an obstinate premise of animism and supernatural intelligence rigging the universe. Yes, it is shear mysticism.
The "universe" of everything that is -- i.e., all of existence as such in contrast to a configuration of the physical universe of planets, stars, etc. -- does not have a "cause" and is not an "effect". Existence exists and that's it. It simply is. There can be no "explanation" of how or why existence exists as an "effect" in terms of something outside it, i.e., in terms of that which does not exist. Non-existence is not a kind of existence preceding or outside of existence. The concept of explanation presupposed existence. To use the term otherwise is another stolen concept fallacy. Explanation and identification of causes are by reference to what exists and which you already know, not to an other-than-existence, supernatural plans, or imagined space aliens, which is all gibberish and not explanation at all.
I wonder how and if England's theories relate to the water molecule and the bacterial form of life?
What is most interesting to me is that the combinatorial dynamics of matter may serve as well for the evolution of consciousness, ergo the cohesiveness of memes.
origin(s) of life. Even if the project is proven with math, there cannot be belief until it is proven in actuality and then duplicated many times by different researchers. I think it will happen, as will conquering the speed of light limitation, and eventually the cause for every phenomena in the universe. Look at the progress in the last 100 years and ask yourself what can we accomplish in a thousand years. Just as the last 50 years were unpredictable, a thousand years would be unimaginable.
I'm sorry, but that does not seem to be a logical consequence. If true, one would think that you could use a laser on a lump of coal (carbon) and create a living organism. Right.
The first life had to spontaneously start. It might have come from some long exposure to light (but how long could it have been? No more than a single day, or even if in the polar regions, at most several months, but those areas while receiving long exposure receive weak exposure).
Why do we not see this kind of spontaneous generation in the wild today? That theory has no explanation for that and does not even treat it.
Just because you don't see it happening in big lumps as you walk down the sidewalk doesn't mean it isn't happening or can't.
I find the concept interesting and look forward to hearing more about it in the future, whether it stands up to rigorous analysis and critique or not.
The only offputting part for me is that at some level it seems to switch cause and effect... as if the molecules Decide to get more complex in Order to reverse their Entropic decay....
I'd be much more comfortable with a description that postulated that certain molecules might have an inherent and natural tendency to combine with other chemicals or molecules under the right circumstances.
After all, not all systems are inherently decaying. For many billion years, one HELL of a LOT of Energy has been bathing interstellar space, and we've already detected many complex molecules in interstellar space!
Entropy implies that 'everything eventually cools off or reaches some minimum energy level,' but heck, given the energy bath and radiation intensities in interstellar space and near fusion reactors like stars, how could anyone say that the right resonant driving frequencies would NOT encourage certain molecules to latch on to each other in more, rather than less, complex ways?!
This looks like an exciting theory... now, on to developing or disproving it!
Or, as I might more likely put it...
https://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveSci...
One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. They picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."
God listened patiently and kindly to the man and, after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well! How about this? Let's have a man-making contest."
To which the man replied, "OK, great!"
But God added, "Now we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."
The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.
God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"
If the scientists want to prove that life came by random, why don't they just generate explosions to create their experiment to prove how life came about.
Oh yeah, SOMEONE had to start the explosion in the first place. The irony of their argument is in the argument itself.
Even the Atomic clock which by the way was NOT an evolutionary item that just spontaneously created itself cannot match the precision of even our earth around the sun.
Our Galaxy has billions of solar systems each with orbits and planets that orbits the exact same precision and there are billions of Galaxies with Billions of Solar system with billions of planets all orbiting with the exact same precision.
Now we must look mathematically using the term mathematical impossibility. This is a “Scientific Term” and also scientifically accepted concept.
Now there are many articles calculating the “odds” of life spontaneously erupting from a pool of slime. Here is one such article.
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/mathemat...
To shorten this a bit the calculated odds of life originating IF all the components exist and randomly come together at the right time in the right order over the right time is approximately 788x10^372 IF you take only half of the things that have to come together.
Then let’s add a chaos of explosion pushing billions of galaxies and billions of solar systems all in perfectly precise orbital stations into the equation.
Human Vision Is a Mathematical Impossibility April 28, 2014
http://www.realclearscience.com/2014/04/...
The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/493/
Using just math on those factors we “know” about takes the “odds” of this being a random explosion to realms far being mathematical impossibility by any stretch of the imagination.
Then one must ask, Ok if this did all come about by an explosion what cause the explosion and matter in the first place since Science says matter/energy can neither be destroyed nor created only rearranged.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...
So if energy which makes up matter can neither be created nor destroyed only altered, then this energy must have come from someplace. Perhaps “God”?
1. Type of Star. Only a very small subset of main-sequence, yellow stars put out the necessary range of energy: not too much so as to bake everything crispy, but enough to warm things properly. And it has to have the proper life span to produce fairly steady radiation.
2. Position from star. There is only a very small orbital distance capable of sustaining life.
3. Orbital eccentricity. A planet's orbit must be within a certain eccentricity ("ovalness") range - too much and seasonal shifts become too extreme to support manageable weather.
4. Planetary composition. Many people do not know this, but an iron-cored world is VERY unusual. The common consensus among planetary geologists is that our Earth is actually the result of a collision of two other planetary bodies: one mostly of iron and the other of mostly silicates. The iron formed the super-heated core to give us a strong magnetic field capable of warding off things like coronal mass ejections (commonly misnamed as "solar flares") and also created enough heat inside the earth to prevent the oceans from freezing solid. Then there is the silica-based crustal plates that move around on top of this which provide a base for the growth of plant life, etc. To go further, there are only a very few elements on the periodic table which do not appear naturally. Naturally forming asteroids and other planetary bodies usually gravitate (pun intended) to certain elements as a process of stellar fusion and decay. Heavier elements typically are not formed except by extremely large, very old stars, meaning that this Earth's makeup is very unlikely to have been the result of our Sun's generation.
5. Water content. Water is the necessary ingredient for the formation of life. Recently, scientists have discovered that it is very likely that the majority of Earth's water didn't originate on this planet, but was actually dropped over millions/billions of years by erosion from passing comets. Considering our massive neighbors like Jupiter and the Sun in comparison to the Earth's relative mass, there is an incredibly tiny window of opportunity for such passing bodies.
6. Speed of revolution. Too fast, and gale-force winds and hurricanes are the norm. Too slow, and cloud formation and precipitation patterns stall - alternately inundating or deserting vast swaths of land and preventing plant development and growth.
7. Axial tilt. While contributing greatly to our seasons, the tilt of the earth also contributes greatly to the weather.
Items to ponder, but put together, all of these things had to come together just perfectly even to give life a chance. Pretty amazing.
And "raw energy" being non-intelligent has no "need" to alter itself.
Question: You know why they call it space?
Answer: Because there is so much of it.
Gravity, Strong, Weak, and Electromagnetic forces are responsible.
Your question indicated by extension that a pile of rocks will eventually become a fully formed building by themselves if only there was a big enough windstorm to crush them, form them into bricks, wait till they harden and dry, mix the mortar, lay them in a solid formation that matches a squared building, coupled with the trees that will naturally and totally by accident cut themselves into 2 x 4's of appropriate length, fasten themselves to the roof lay themselves out completing a roofed structure. Again all by random and without help or external interaction. Now if you are indicating by your point that Energy itself posses intelligence, I would point out that there are many forms of life. Carbon based we know of but science theorizes on silicon based life forms, and the possibility of life forms that consist of pure energy.
Interestingly God is described in Isaiah as guess what..."A Powerful Mighty Force..., .i.e.Energy"
KJV Isa 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high, And see who has created these things, Who brings out their host by number; He calls them all by name, By the greatness of His might And the strength of His power; Not one is missing.
Douay Rheims Isa 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high, and see who hath created these things: who bringeth out their host by number, and calleth them all by their names: by the greatness of his might, and strength, and power, not one of them was missing.
Webster Isa 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names, by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.
NWT (Isaiah 40:26) 26 “Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one [of them] is missing.
Christians know based on the writings God does not exist in physical form, therefore by extension and based on these writings the understanding God exists as a form of intelligent energy.
If you ascribe intelligence to the energy whereby that energy "created" the physical matter, why not call it for what it is. "GOD"
You will say that is just stupid, and I say yes, just like Evolution simply because what I described happening has a better chance of occurring than even the development of the human eyeball alone.
Raw energy is unintelligent. It exists. To form itself indicates intelligence. Any suggestion that raw energy "just happened to turn into everything in our universe, is just a plausible as the rocks and wind becoming a fully formed perfectly square building all by itself.
People will keep digging for ways to explain away God. Note, God with a capital G. The God of the Bible. They're all well and good with "god" like they want a god to be, invented in their own minds (the common phrase "I think god is _______").
Listen, crystals organize themselves in a manner that is highly organized because that is the lowest state of energy for them to be in. That is the laws of the universe at work. Why do those laws exist? They had to come from somewhere. The intricacy of those laws and how they tie together is absolutely astounding.
I actually make a suggestion to everyone on here (Christian or not). Take an evening and download a game. It's called Kerbal Space Program. Learn it, watch a few video tutorials on youtube, whatever. But get into it for a little bit. What that's going to do is let you see the laws of the universe on a micro scale, without getting into microscopic things that we dont' fully understand.
You play the game for a little bit, and you start to realize that this universe is so highly ordered and governed by laws so intricate and precise that it is absolutely mind blowing. In the game, which is actually very very detailed and minute in its physics modeling, is actually a VAST simplification of how the universe operates. Let me explain:
On one hand, you're up in space, and you begin to learn the basic laws of orbital physics, that if you do X, then Y is going to happen, every single time. If you do X 5 seconds later than you otherwise would however, Z will happen, which is a completely different output, and could, say, result in you crashing into the Mun, or floating endlessly into infinite space.
As simplified (and yet detailed) as this is, it lets you see how structured this universe is, and (in my case at least) begin to appreciate the mind blowing intelligence required to design a universe like this.
THEN, when you sit back and realize that, you can start to think about how intricate things are in space, and if X then Y every single time, you begin to realize that that same thing is true here on Earth, within an atmosphere, and with billions of other objects interacting within the system. But you can start to realize that, in fact, if we could accurately understand and model the interactions of all of those objects, we can be just as "in control" of what is happening here on Earth as we can in orbital mechanics.
Now, like I said, this is simplification of how orbital mechanics work. It doesn't take into account a ton of other things that start to shake your brain into realizing how many other things play a part in this ridiculously complex universe.