3 ms·

Perhaps we should consider why exactly are we living in something likely described as the most beautiful star system in our galaxy. The overall beauty of layout

Perhaps we should consider why exactly are we living in something likely described as the most beautiful star system in our galaxy. The overall beauty of layout, the variety and the perfectly spaced orbits is something we may no longer take for granted. The fact that Moon has the same apparent size as the Sun, too. It is also a cold, calm beauty for technically developed species instead of immediate joy of having multiple visible hot Jupiters in the system.

steve_adams_86 3y ago
Couldn’t what we find beautiful be emergent from where we find ourselves to begin with? It seems extremely arbitrary to try to define what’s beautiful about any star system.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  I would argue that any kind of aliens will see our Solar system as beautiful because everything is regularly spaced, a great variety of all kinds of planets and moons, planetary rings, etc. We take all that for granted, but it really isn't. Many of other solar systems we know contain an irregular set of planets.
  - trilbyglens 3y ago
    The spacing of the planets isn't due to random chance. They are all in orbits defined by resonances with the other planets, as they effect gravitational drag on each other. They have pushed and pulled on each other for billions of years, until they have settled into the ordered structure we see today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance It could also be well possible that this sort of stability is required for multi-billion year evolutionary processes to take place. Systems with more chaos would likely also have chaotic seasons even if their planets were to have the other needed conditions for live. If the summer-winter cycle were more unpredictable that it is on earth, maybe that acts as a limit on the complexity that live can achieve as it would constantly be getting pruned back. Systems with "unstable" or "irregular" planetary arrangements are probably just in an earlier stage of development, and might likely lose planets or push them into more stable orbits eventually. Similarly "stable" or "ordered" systems are likely just older systems which have been able to develop without being disrupted by outside phenomena. In that sense looking for well structured systems might be a good place to start looking for life, as they are likely old and stable enough to have had evolution take place.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      The issue that we're not seeing such spaced systems around us so we may no longer be sure it is common.
  - steve_adams_86 3y ago
    I suppose what I’m wondering is if those features would matter at all to other species. They’re highly salient to us from micro to universal scales, but other species might not even have a sort of mental construct for that notion to begin with. Perhaps it’s possible to be advanced and still have that kind of detail be present and visible yet not interesting or beautiful.
- Buttons840 3y ago
  I've heard this called the "puddle argument": The puddle looked at itself and its surroundings. The puddle saw that it had a very peculiar and specific shape, and yet its surroundings matched it perfectly. "It's amazing that the world is shaped just right and fits me perfectly" thinks the puddle.
  - steve_adams_86 3y ago
    I love this. It describes what I’m thinking pretty much perfectly.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    If our world is shaped by the set of planets around the Sun, this will be highly scientifically relevant.
nathan_compton 3y ago
A few things about this idea. 1. It is much easier to detect large extra-solar planets than small, earth-like ones, which probably accounts for the preponderance of them in extra-solar surveys. I think its naive to conclude the solar system is so unusual. 2. The Trappist system isn't all that different from our own. Even detecting one similar system in our neighborhood suggests that they may be more common than the exo-solar planetary surveys so far have revealed. 3. You seem to be implying the existence of some supernatural force which has arranged our solar system. Or perhaps just a very powerful force. But, given the scale of the universe (or even just the galaxy) and the utter lack of direct evidence for either supernatural forces or ultra-advanced aliens, it seems like, on balance, the explanation "we just got lucky, planetary resonances, etc" combined with "the major edifices of human knowledge are consistent with this explanation" seem sufficient to make the hypothesis of "big dudes built the solar system" seem absurd.

steve_adams_86 3y ago

Couldn’t what we find beautiful be emergent from where we find ourselves to begin with? It seems extremely arbitrary to try to define what’s beautiful about any star system.

thriftwy 3y ago
I would argue that any kind of aliens will see our Solar system as beautiful because everything is regularly spaced, a great variety of all kinds of planets and moons, planetary rings, etc. We take all that for granted, but it really isn't. Many of other solar systems we know contain an irregular set of planets.
- trilbyglens 3y ago
  The spacing of the planets isn't due to random chance. They are all in orbits defined by resonances with the other planets, as they effect gravitational drag on each other. They have pushed and pulled on each other for billions of years, until they have settled into the ordered structure we see today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance It could also be well possible that this sort of stability is required for multi-billion year evolutionary processes to take place. Systems with more chaos would likely also have chaotic seasons even if their planets were to have the other needed conditions for live. If the summer-winter cycle were more unpredictable that it is on earth, maybe that acts as a limit on the complexity that live can achieve as it would constantly be getting pruned back. Systems with "unstable" or "irregular" planetary arrangements are probably just in an earlier stage of development, and might likely lose planets or push them into more stable orbits eventually. Similarly "stable" or "ordered" systems are likely just older systems which have been able to develop without being disrupted by outside phenomena. In that sense looking for well structured systems might be a good place to start looking for life, as they are likely old and stable enough to have had evolution take place.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    The issue that we're not seeing such spaced systems around us so we may no longer be sure it is common.
- steve_adams_86 3y ago
  I suppose what I’m wondering is if those features would matter at all to other species. They’re highly salient to us from micro to universal scales, but other species might not even have a sort of mental construct for that notion to begin with. Perhaps it’s possible to be advanced and still have that kind of detail be present and visible yet not interesting or beautiful.
Buttons840 3y ago
I've heard this called the "puddle argument": The puddle looked at itself and its surroundings. The puddle saw that it had a very peculiar and specific shape, and yet its surroundings matched it perfectly. "It's amazing that the world is shaped just right and fits me perfectly" thinks the puddle.
- steve_adams_86 3y ago
  I love this. It describes what I’m thinking pretty much perfectly.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  If our world is shaped by the set of planets around the Sun, this will be highly scientifically relevant.

nathan_compton 3y ago

A few things about this idea. 1. It is much easier to detect large extra-solar planets than small, earth-like ones, which probably accounts for the preponderance of them in extra-solar surveys. I think its naive to conclude the solar system is so unusual. 2. The Trappist system isn't all that different from our own. Even detecting one similar system in our neighborhood suggests that they may be more common than the exo-solar planetary surveys so far have revealed. 3. You seem to be implying the existence of some supernatural force which has arranged our solar system. Or perhaps just a very powerful force. But, given the scale of the universe (or even just the galaxy) and the utter lack of direct evidence for either supernatural forces or ultra-advanced aliens, it seems like, on balance, the explanation "we just got lucky, planetary resonances, etc" combined with "the major edifices of human knowledge are consistent with this explanation" seem sufficient to make the hypothesis of "big dudes built the solar system" seem absurd.