3 ms·
We kind of already understand the physical processes that brought things into being, though. A mix of random chance and physical laws happened to create the rig
by dangerlibrary 11y ago
We kind of already understand the physical processes that brought things into being, though. A mix of random chance and physical laws happened to create the right environment for hydrogen and oxygen and carbon and nitrogen to exist in the same place at stable temperatures for a couple billion years, and we got life. The question is "can we accept the fact that this process took place without being designed."
Constructor theory says, in short: "Yep. We can also accept the existence of space unicorns, for a physically possible definition thereof. Probably not on the far side of the moon though, since we've been there and would've seen them."
- qq66 11y ago>" A mix of random chance and physical laws happened to create the right environment for hydrogen and oxygen and carbon and nitrogen to exist in the same place at stable temperatures for a couple billion years, and we got life." That sentence just skipped over the most important part of the whole question! :)
- dangerlibrary 11y agoI don't think either constructor theory or any alternative theory addresses anything I skipped. Either you accept that the initial state that lead to life was constructed, or you accept that it was not constructed and are faced with the problem that constructor theory intends to address. These theories attempt to explain why the initial state for the universe was conducive to life/stars/black holes/whatever - everything I described is long after the fact.
- qq66 11y agoOh, I don't think "constructor theory" answers any interesting questions. I just think that there is a very interesting question about how we get from primordial soup to self-replicating cells that we don't have a good answer for yet.