4 ms·

10^23 is a speck in the ocean compared to 10^50. There are only 10^90 elementary particles in the entire universe.

gamblor956 4y ago
That's just humans and their biota, dude. You're clearly ignoring the second paragraph, so I guess the problem with your math is simply that your ignoring everything that disagrees with your worldview. Also, physicians don't know how many elementary particles there are in the entire universe, since we don't actually know what the bulk of the entire universe is made of yet, so your 10^90 is clearly just made up.
- jononomo 4y ago
  You took an example of the number of microorganisms in a liter of pond water, then multiplied it by all the liters of water in the ocean — but you won’t find the same number of microorganisms in a liter of salt water a mile deep beneath the arctic. So I think your math is a little sketchy. In any case, I’ll have to go back and find my source and look into how he did the calculation.
- jononomo 4y ago
  As for how many elementary particles there are in the universe, consider that there are between 10^78 and 10^82 atoms in the universe, according to this website: https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/stories/which-greater-number-of-atoms-universe-or-number-of-chess-moves https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/stories/which-greater-nu... "Titin is a multi-functional protein that behaves as a nonlinear spring in human muscles with its many domains unfolding and refolding in the presence of forces and giving muscles their elasticity. Titin is about 100 times longer than the average protein with its 33,423 amino acid polypeptide chain" (http://book.bionumbers.org/how-big-is-the-average-protein/ http://book.bionumbers.org/how-big-is-the-average-protein/) How many different ways are there to create a protein containing 33,423 amino acids? I will leave this calculation as an exercise for the reader, but as a starting point, suppose there are only 10 amino acids available -- that would yield 10^33,423 possible arrangements. But even an average protein would have more different possible arrangements than there are atoms on Earth. Given that there are only 10^16 seconds in a billion years, we can safely assume that mutating a protein ten times every second for a billion years will search less than a quadrillionth of the search space.
  - ajuc 4y ago
    1. again you're (mis)quoting universe size without understanding. The actual quote is "There are between 10^78 to 10^82 atoms in the OBSERVABLE universe". As in - "universe that is close enough to us that light from it can arrive to us before it expands away FTL". There is no reason to believe universe ends exactly as far from us as we can see. It would be a coincidence much more astounding than the fact that titin exists (it would mean Earth is exactly in the middle of the WHOLE universe and it's exactly the size for us to see everything). It would also mean gravity theory is wrong because with nothing outside of the observable universe - universe should be expanding slower because mean gravity would bring everything towards Earth. Basically it's not the case. 2. genetic code doesn't change only by 1-base pair at a time. There are duplications, inclusions, etc. I'm pretty sure you can find many duplicated fragments in the code for titin. 3. you have choosen your target (titin) without specifying the class that it belongs to. Maybe it only matters that it's long and the endings are kinda this shape? Let's say there's 10^25_000 different viable titin alternatives. No matter which we end up with - it works, and you wouldn't know if you were in these universes instead. It significantly changes the likelihood but you treat the titin as the only possibility. It's like being amazed that John Smith won the lottery - sure, it's unlikely that this exact person won. But it's pretty likely that SOMEONE wins the lottery. And you can only be amazed if you chose that person before the draw. In case of titin you select the winner after the draw and marvel at the unlikelihood. These comparisons are usually motivated ideologically and based on misunderstanding of both probability and universe.
    - jononomo 4y ago
      1. You really seem hung up on the word "observable". Obviously we can't literally see atoms in distant galaxies -- but we can still deduce that there are atoms there. We use calculations regarding the expansion rate of the universe, the strength of gravity, etc, to "observe" using scientific reasoning. But in any case, what is the point of your argument here -- suppose I am off by a factor of a quadrillion and there are really 10^99 atoms in the universe -- how does that change anything? 2. Proteins are not genetic code. 3. Let's say there are 4 viable titin alternatives. Also, what is this about "you wouldn't know if you were in these universes"? Do you think there are other universes? The multiverse hypothesis is a transparent attempt to avoid the conclusion that God exists -- but it has no basis in any science or empiricism of any sort -- it's just an absolutely made up speculative fantasy. The fact that people have to resort to it just drives home how impoverished the materialist framework is -- it only works if there is an infinite number of universes for which there is no evidence. At least having in God is having faith in something for which there is evidence. Apparently I have the solid statistical reasoning here and you are the one motivated by a "materialism of the gaps" ideology.
ajuc 4y ago
That's observable universe. There's no requirement for life to arise in observable universe. If it arose in any other part - that part would then be "observable".

That's just humans and their biota, dude. You're clearly ignoring the second paragraph, so I guess the problem with your math is simply that your ignoring everything that disagrees with your worldview. Also, physicians don't know how many elementary particles there are in the entire universe, since we don't actually know what the bulk of the entire universe is made of yet, so your 10^90 is clearly just made up.

jononomo 4y ago
You took an example of the number of microorganisms in a liter of pond water, then multiplied it by all the liters of water in the ocean — but you won’t find the same number of microorganisms in a liter of salt water a mile deep beneath the arctic. So I think your math is a little sketchy. In any case, I’ll have to go back and find my source and look into how he did the calculation.
jononomo 4y ago
As for how many elementary particles there are in the universe, consider that there are between 10^78 and 10^82 atoms in the universe, according to this website: https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/stories/which-greater-number-of-atoms-universe-or-number-of-chess-moves https://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/stories/which-greater-nu... "Titin is a multi-functional protein that behaves as a nonlinear spring in human muscles with its many domains unfolding and refolding in the presence of forces and giving muscles their elasticity. Titin is about 100 times longer than the average protein with its 33,423 amino acid polypeptide chain" (http://book.bionumbers.org/how-big-is-the-average-protein/ http://book.bionumbers.org/how-big-is-the-average-protein/) How many different ways are there to create a protein containing 33,423 amino acids? I will leave this calculation as an exercise for the reader, but as a starting point, suppose there are only 10 amino acids available -- that would yield 10^33,423 possible arrangements. But even an average protein would have more different possible arrangements than there are atoms on Earth. Given that there are only 10^16 seconds in a billion years, we can safely assume that mutating a protein ten times every second for a billion years will search less than a quadrillionth of the search space.
- ajuc 4y ago
  1. again you're (mis)quoting universe size without understanding. The actual quote is "There are between 10^78 to 10^82 atoms in the OBSERVABLE universe". As in - "universe that is close enough to us that light from it can arrive to us before it expands away FTL". There is no reason to believe universe ends exactly as far from us as we can see. It would be a coincidence much more astounding than the fact that titin exists (it would mean Earth is exactly in the middle of the WHOLE universe and it's exactly the size for us to see everything). It would also mean gravity theory is wrong because with nothing outside of the observable universe - universe should be expanding slower because mean gravity would bring everything towards Earth. Basically it's not the case. 2. genetic code doesn't change only by 1-base pair at a time. There are duplications, inclusions, etc. I'm pretty sure you can find many duplicated fragments in the code for titin. 3. you have choosen your target (titin) without specifying the class that it belongs to. Maybe it only matters that it's long and the endings are kinda this shape? Let's say there's 10^25_000 different viable titin alternatives. No matter which we end up with - it works, and you wouldn't know if you were in these universes instead. It significantly changes the likelihood but you treat the titin as the only possibility. It's like being amazed that John Smith won the lottery - sure, it's unlikely that this exact person won. But it's pretty likely that SOMEONE wins the lottery. And you can only be amazed if you chose that person before the draw. In case of titin you select the winner after the draw and marvel at the unlikelihood. These comparisons are usually motivated ideologically and based on misunderstanding of both probability and universe.
  - jononomo 4y ago
    1. You really seem hung up on the word "observable". Obviously we can't literally see atoms in distant galaxies -- but we can still deduce that there are atoms there. We use calculations regarding the expansion rate of the universe, the strength of gravity, etc, to "observe" using scientific reasoning. But in any case, what is the point of your argument here -- suppose I am off by a factor of a quadrillion and there are really 10^99 atoms in the universe -- how does that change anything? 2. Proteins are not genetic code. 3. Let's say there are 4 viable titin alternatives. Also, what is this about "you wouldn't know if you were in these universes"? Do you think there are other universes? The multiverse hypothesis is a transparent attempt to avoid the conclusion that God exists -- but it has no basis in any science or empiricism of any sort -- it's just an absolutely made up speculative fantasy. The fact that people have to resort to it just drives home how impoverished the materialist framework is -- it only works if there is an infinite number of universes for which there is no evidence. At least having in God is having faith in something for which there is evidence. Apparently I have the solid statistical reasoning here and you are the one motivated by a "materialism of the gaps" ideology.

ajuc 4y ago

That's observable universe. There's no requirement for life to arise in observable universe. If it arose in any other part - that part would then be "observable".