Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Against the Odds

We're all aware at some level that "The universe is big." Our brains, however, are not quite made to easily grasp its sheer magnitude. So, science writers attempt to conceptualize it by way of analogy: "The universe is so big that the number of stars is 10 times the number of grains of sand in all the world's beaches and deserts." Describing the universe in more human-relatable terms allows us to suddenly switch from a vague sense of "big" to absolutely breath-taking.

I recently came across a collection of quotes attempting to quantify another statistical wonder, the towering odds against existence that everyone now reading this has overcome. In Hitch 22, Hitchens uses this Richard Dawkins quote to preface his prologue:

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of the Sahara [I guess "grains of sand" is science's cliche for comprehending large numbers -jh] Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.

Then, a few days later, I came across a piece by Dick Cavett in the New York Times Opinionator blog. He describes a rather unique annual Hollywood party in which actors, writers, professors, scientists, etc. all gather to give lectures, exchange ideas, and drink. (I wanted to attend, but learned it cost a cool 1000 bucks. It's basically a smaller version of TED, I guess). Cavett writes about a lecture he attends:

He pointed out that we each have millions of ancestors and that, at conception, your sex is determined randomly. If any single one of that galaxy of ancestors had chanced to have a different sex, you would not be here to read this. (Presumably, someone else would. Unless of course one of my millions of ancestors met with a mishap.)

Keep that word “galaxy” in mind. Do we have more “ancestors” than there are atoms in several galaxies? Just how many of your forebears were there, that the wrong gender accident could have happened to, thereby snuffing any chance of your existence? Brace yourself.

Alvarez led us gently to the wowing fact: An imaginary space ship travels through our galaxy. Each of the millions of heavenly bodies in our galaxy represents one ancestor. But it gets better. (Or worse.)

The ship leaves our galaxy and journeys through the next. And the next.

And …

Even typing this next bit makes me glad I’m sitting down. Not only does each planet, star, Milky Way and what-have-you in every galaxy represent numerically a member of your family tree, so does each atom in all those galaxies. Every one representing a chance for each of us not to exist.

Had any one of those parents died before maturing, or been sterile, or not met the wife by chance in handing her a dropped glove, or shared a woolly mammoth bone with her on a date leading to bed, or been carried off in the plague or killed by some forerunner of a New York bicycle rider on the sidewalk . . . the mind boggles. (Not to mention the near-infinite number of people who might have been born down through the end of time but weren’t — because your particular chain went on unbroken.)

Can any mind this side of Einstein’s accommodate this thought?

How many ancestors, going back millions and millions of years — each of whose specific wiggly was in each case the only one among millions that got through to make you . . . how many of those ancestors are there?
It is in these realizations that I consistently discover the numinous and awe-inspiring. Another quote from a Sullivan reader, apropos to autumn:

The weather is changing here … big breezes at sundown blow away the clouds and humidity, leaving a fresh feeling to the air on your skin … and it lasts until dawn, when it's a joy just to be able to walk outside … and so I'm outside a lot, daylight and dark … and that's where I think about all this: What are the chances that my specific collection of atoms should have been allowed to coalesce into a being constructed not only to support thought but also self-awareness? A being capable of apprehending the beauty all around and concluding that the apprehending of it is probably the point of being here at all … I think if you are religious in the general sense, you probably perceive this as a form of worship -- the apprehension of and thankfulness for all that beauty which is experienced as a divine gift … I may not call it that, but I think I appreciate it in much the same way: through sheer wonder and gratitude.
Lastly, an excerpt from Alan Moore's Watchmen:

The Darkness of Mere Being

Thermodynamic Miracles... Events with odds against so astronomical they're effectively impossible, like oxygen spontaneously becoming gold. I long to observe such a thing.

And yet, in each human coupling, a thousand million sperm vie for a single egg. Multiply those odds by countless generations, against the odds of your ancestors being alive, meeting, siring this precise son, that exact daughter...

Until your mother loves a man, she has every reason to hate, and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization, it was you, only you, that emerged.

To distill so specific a form from that chaos of improbability, like turning air to gold, that is the crowning unlikelihood.

The thermodynamic miracle.

Come... dry your eyes, for you are life, rarer than a quark and unpredictable beyond the dreams of Heisenberg; the clay in which the forces that shape all things leave their fingerprints most clearly.

Dry your eyes... and let's go home.

11 comments:

James R said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
James R said...

I'll add some of my favorites that are constant reminders to me.

G. K. Chesterton wrote in "Orthodoxy":
"It is common to say that many a man was a Great Might-Have-Been. To me it is a more solid and startling fact that any man in the street is a Great Might-Not-Have-Been."

and from Kurt Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle":
"...and I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around...I got so much, and most mud got so little!"
-Last rites of the Books of Bokonon

and everyone's popular favorite from Mr. Rogers:
"You are special."

Big Myk said...

I think Dr. Seuss said it as well as succinctly as anyone:

If we didn't have birthdays, you wouldn't be you.
If you'd never been born, well then what would you do?
If you'd never been born, well then what would you be?
You might be a fish! Or a toad in a tree!
You might be a doorknob! Or three baked potatoes!
You might be a bag full of hard green tomatoes.
Or worse than all that... Why, you might be a WASN'T!
A Wasn't has no fun at all. No, he doesn't.

Big Myk said...

To this I might add, since we were somehow selected to be one of the immeasurably few:

LET'S NOT BLOW IT.

Peter H of Lebo said...

Mind blowing thought experiment. I think there is a contradiction here- the vastness/linear of the universe and the probability of our existence. We are rarer viewed through the past-based probability. Its like saying imagine what today's weather would have been like if that dinosaur hadn't sneeze 250 million years ago. What ifs make everything rare, what if the base orbital level of carbon was a nanovolt lower or high- life couldn't exist in the entire universe! Whenever I think I am unique all I have to remember is that if the Universe had a life span of two weeks it took only 20 minutes after the universe became hospitable to life for intelligence to arise on this planet. Life on this planet began the moment it became possible. Probability based on past options is silly. You can looked into the past by looking at the sky but you can't change what has occurred, nor what has occurred will influence the present. Spacetime is linear (also an actually physical entity) therefore the past has no effect and therefore no influence on probability of the present.
My existence is no more or no less rare than oxygen changing into gold and gold changing into oxygen which is occurring right as I write this. The vastness of the universe and its linear nature makes everything rare and nothing rare.

If the multi-universe proves correct, probability becomes meaningless because everything possible will exist given the right amount of time. Dawkins comment on the vast combinations of DNA- if given infinity time all combinations would occur.

Finally, not to take away too much from my awesomeness but I am but a step, no different or rare from a birth or death of a star or rain falling from the sky- a step, the form Matter takes, as it slowly ebbs from existence due to slow linear procession of entropy.

James R said...

Again, I'm not sure I understand completely what you are saying, but a Fermilab physicist is attempting to rebut your statement that "Spacetime is linear (also an actually (sic) physical entity)". Who says the universe doesn't have a sense of humor?

Peter H of Lebo said...

Read that article, they mention nothing of the linear of spacetime or of its physical properties, just the resolution of spacetime (some physicists think spacetime is smooth but this experiment may show it operates like finite packets). They couldn't do the experiment if time wasn't linear or an actual thing because the testing apparatus is a clock and spacetime is observable/testable, making it as real as the coffee I hold in my hand. I hope you are right and spacetime is not linear because the second law of thermodynamics would be invalided, and according to Gregory Hill and Kerry Thornley- "The tendency for entropy to increase in isolated systems is expressed in the second law of thermodynamics — perhaps the most pessimistic and amoral formulation in all human thought."

I wasn't very clear, occupying a certain point in space and time makes everything rare because it happens but once. But in the vastness of the universe those rare occurrences occur a lot making them rare and not rare. In the perspective of the universe life isn't rare. It occurred as practically as soon as possible. I was stating my existence, yes is rare, but so was the formation of our sun, the formation of water ect. I am but a rare form of matter in a universe filled with rare forms of matter or antimatter. We are all rare steps in system going from low entropy to high entropy.

James R said...

I hope I am right too (at least once in a while), but in this case I didn't say anything. All I did was point to an article about an experiment by Craig Hogan. As you say, it is an experiment about the resolution of spacetime.

"Read that article, they mention nothing of the linear of spacetime or of its physical properties, just the resolution of spacetime"

I did read the article and many others on the same subject. It is fascinating and can lead for the first time to the link between the quantum world and gravity, something that has eluded us. I do say that whether or not spacetime is continuous or discrete is definitely one of its physical properties.

I see, however, your objection in thinking I was implying that spacetime wasn't linear. I meant to focus on the "physical properties" part of your statement. "Linear" was just there in the middle (after "Spacetime") so it got included in the quote. I can see how that caused confusion. (Although I admit sometimes I find it useful to picture time as a mountain range, rather than a line.)

Also, I definitely believe that spacetime "is as real as the coffee cup I hold in my hand." or, rather, the coffee cup you hold in your hand. I believe it in the same way any scientist would believe it. As Einstein said:

The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science. Since, however, sense perception only gives information of this external world or of "physical reality" indirectly, we can only grasp the latter by speculative means. It follows from this that our notions of physical reality can never be final. We must always be ready to change these notions - that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics - in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way.

Here are some of the better articles about Hogan's experiment. This one Myk would enjoy since it starts with a quote from Dr. Seuss. Here is another and this one I'll put in just to get rile Peter. There is a video that actually has some good stuff, but some stuff that Peter won't like. :)

Note that this experiment will not prove anything, but it may cause a significant change in the way physicists (and us non-physicists) understand the world.

James R said...

Despite the fear that I'm being long winded and no one will bother to read this anyway, I'd like to say that I appreciate and agree with your observation that there is a contradiction here. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that we have, on the one hand, the awe of the almost insurmountable odds that we are here, but, on the other hand, we have the understanding that almost everything can happen given almost an infinite amount of time. So it may not be so special after all.

Therefore, we have a major truth (thank you, James), as Myk would say, not a trivial one. Both the specialness and the inevitability are true.

Peter H of Lebo said...

I am still confused at why you stated, "a Fermilab physicist is attempting to rebut your statement that "Spacetime is linear (also an actually (sic) physical entity)"."

Nothing in the Hogan's experiment or the subsequent articles disproves that spacetime is a not a physical entity, whether spacetime is 3-d (2-d + time) or 11-d. They never stated everything in the universe is a farce. Instead, our description of spacetime may not be correct.

In fact, these articles further prove that spacetime is a physical entity (if correct) by getting a closer understanding its physical properties (aka subatomic structure of spacetime).

I completely agree that the understanding of spacetime is going to be further refined, getting closer to a model that accurately predicts and represents nature. However, change in our understanding does not rebut my statement that "spacetime is an actually physical entity".

Correction-
I made a mistake in my response later, "Read that article, they mention nothing of the linear of spacetime or of its physical properties, just the resolution of spacetime" should have read "or of the lack of physically properties" since obviously the resolution of spacetime is a physical property.

James R said...

You are absolutely right. We both agree that the experiment could change our understanding of spacetime. My line of thinking was more like "what we call spacetime would change." I wasn't thinking, as you were, of the physical reality itself.

However, I can hardly be blamed for thinking you were treating "spacetime" as how we normally understand it. How would I know that in this instance you were using the word to mean the actual physical reality behind the concept?

As an aside, sometimes I get the feeling that you may think I don't feel strongly enough that there is an absolutely and irrefutable physical universe that we are observing—a physical entity, as you say. I do. I'm a scientist at heart. In fact I believe it more strongly than practically anyone else on this blog—because I have collected more empirical evidence as proof.