Man as derivative: a scientific conversation with Professor Mario Livio, senior astrophysicist at the Space Telescope Science Institute

54 תגובות

1. my father
   Even without technology we have more than five senses. We know the position of our skeleton (proprioception) and sense of balance (vestibular).
   And Steven Pinker will tell you that we have a sense of language - which distinguishes us from other animals. And let's not exaggerate, there are a number of other senses that must be lived and we don't, such as magnetic field sense (cows) and electric field sense (sharks) and time sense (plants).

2. We don't just have five senses, we actually have an infinite number of senses. Through technology we can 'see' wavelengths outside the visible range, hear voices outside the hearing range (of course in both cases translate the signals into a representation in the visible or audible range).
   There is talk of the fact that in the next decade, electronic sensors will be placed in countless devices at home, in the car, on the street, etc. that will report their findings to a server in the cloud and it will alert those who need it if something is wrong.

3. Vigdor
   Wait a minute - whose purpose? of humans, or did it create man?
   You mix these two concepts - and create an apricot.

   Every person is the result of a pairing of his two parents. that's it. Parents also do not have ownership of their offspring, they generally (no disrespect) make sure that their offspring can also reproduce.

   Each of us was brought up by our parents and by the environment. It determines what we believe and what we know. We have (the placenta of) free will and everyone chooses their own goals in life. There is really a big problem that many do not do it. Sometimes they fulfill the wishes of their parents, or worse, the wishes of various clergymen.

   You don't need to invent all kinds of "purposes" to explain life. I really don't understand on what basis you state, in a decisive way, that there are all kinds of "hidden laws". I hope it's not due to the use of "forbidden substances"...

4. my father
   Science has never been objective. Yes also since behaviorist psychology began to study the environment. And this is because each person has his own baggage, his own assumptions that he wants to strengthen. A different environment in which he carries out the research.
   Subjectivity was and will always be a part of science.
   But————but if we can reach the root level from which the result that we test with those five senses hangs, then, and only then will we be closer to the source, to the root from which the same result hangs, then and only then can we say that we are somehow close to objective research.
   (And I can understand that I was not understood...)

5. Miracles
   You wrote: "I don't understand why it should be assumed that there is a purpose to the world".
   You don't have to assume, you have to get
   I know it sounds absurd, but a person is all about desire. The rater of his desires determines his thoughts and actions.
   Although what is obvious is that we live in a global village where, like a butterfly effect, we influence each other in a network of data. But what has not yet been discovered is that just as there are visible laws that we know about because we experience them, there are additional, more hidden laws that will oblige us to discover them and that for one reason only. Because the same purposefulness, i.e. the same thought that created life from that bang, aimed at this.
   And there is nothing to do with religion or customs of this or that, nothing to do with mysticism or faith.
   but absolute legality in which humanity passes little by little, until the point where a person will reach the question of the purpose of his life...

6. Vigdor
   I don't understand what science is missing. If you assume that there is a purpose to the world then you assume that there is someone who has the purpose.
   I don't understand why it should be assumed that there is a purpose to the world.

7. Vigdor, there will never be a subjective science. This is a wishful thinking of pseudo-scientists that has no chance of coming true.

8. It is written in the article:
   "Questions 'for what' are scientifically sterile questions. Science is concerned with causes and results, not purposes, and this is one of the great contributions of the theory of evolution: that it made it clear to us that the development of life is not teleological (purposive) - that there is no long-term "strategic plan" in it, but only a causal chain, however complex. Because from the scientific point of view, this is how the world works: in chains of cause and effect."
   Whereas in the article 125 the great mysteries it is written:
   "40 years of exploring the Earth's interior with the help of controversial seismic instruments, have brought to light the complexity of the Earth's internal engine without solving the question of how it works."
   And maybe this is exactly where the solution lies. No matter how much we try to explore the interior of the Earth, we will not be able to solve and understand how it works. And what is the reason? The answer is in the article. The tools with which they tried to explore the interior of the earth are sophisticated seismic instruments. As sophisticated as they may be, they are not suitable for solving essential questions that require different devices and tools.
   Just as the interior of the earth does not allow to obtain the secret of the question of its operation, in a similar way the theory of evolution (which is correct in terms of chains of cause and effect), is not able to reach the same purposefulness of that life development.
   For this we must understand that:::::::::
   We will understand that the researcher himself must change in order to be able to reach the depth of the material.
   In order to solve the question of how something works or what is the purpose of our development (and not just a chain of cause and effect) we will have to upgrade ourselves.
   If until today the attention of the research was on the concept (what we are researching), we will see in the near future that the attention should be on the achiever (the person studying the material).

9. son
   If you follow your logic, then:
   I grew up in a secular society.
   And I know a lot of atheists who are irrational.
   In contrast, the believers I know are wiser and more moral.
   I mean you're stupid.
   And according to your logic I am right.

   If you had any sense you would realize that the person you asked is not very smart. As there are secularists who are not very smart.

   If logic existed in you, you would learn from your company what the meaning of the concept of God is.
   You didn't.
   You disbelieve in something you do not understand at all.
   It is similar to someone who does not understand physics and disbelieves in the theory of relativity and concludes that all physicists are stupid.

   It is said that there is no reason, no worries.

10. Almond
    Are atheists arrogant? Come and answer me honestly:
    1) How does man differ from a chimpanzee?
    2) Are men and women equal in everything?
    3) Are Jews somehow superior to non-Jews?

    I would appreciate short and honest answers.

11. Shaked, I think you are the one who is confused about who has the logic, I grew up in a religious society and I never received answers to the questions I asked, only evasions or delusional answers or please don't ask difficult questions...
    I was especially amused by those whose winning sentence was always "Can you prove that God does not exist?!" And that's it, so the conclusion that God exists... and my answer to them was, can you prove that I don't have a spaghetti monster above my head that is the one that created the world? But they still don't understand the logic...meaning if someone believes and wants to believe with all his might in something, no fact or logic or logic will change his mind, and for that it is said, there is no reason and no worries.

12. son
    I know atheist people who are alien to logic. like you for example So they must push God to have something to attack. In the end, they make excuses with nonsense, so as not to be ready to admit their mistake.
    Deaf discourse.
    Atheism/heresy is the father and mother of arrogance and conceit.

13. son
    I hope you are right. Religion is in trouble today, because we know how to explain things that in the past the only thing they thought about was that they were a miracle. I think that if you start from the assumption that everything is natural, you enjoy the world and life much more. It takes a lot of courage, because if you live in a religious society, then you must not ask: it is not just that man is expelled from heaven - curiosity is the first sin.

14. Trying to reason with a believing human being is always doomed to failure, even I still know some who believe that the sun still revolves around the earth and science is a sin... If you can convince a monkey that there is no God, then you can convince people like Roy and his ilk. Just deaf talk. But miracles, your words will reach those who are really looking for answers and in the conversation between you understand who is the fool, and who avoids answering the questions.

15. Einstein
    Be healthy.

16. And miracles, no one here mentioned God except you. So stop pushing him everywhere. (You probably do this so you have something to attack. Because otherwise you have nothing to say).

17. Miracles

    Your dabbling in a steam reagent is beside the point. The foul language you use is not in the spirit of the site. Start talking politely or a troll like you will be blocked.

    You also write things that are not logically consistent: "We know that the Earth is infested with life and that life has a miraculous ability to survive. Therefore - I think it is correct to assume that where there is liquid water then life (or perhaps fossils) will be found."

    "Assume" - you can. But it's not science. The things you wrote above reflect your belief and not something related to science.
    In science there are observations, in science there are experiments and according to science when you see one earth that has life on it and you don't find another like it in the universe - you start from the assumption that there is only one earth that has life on it and there is no other like it in the entire universe. But, of course, we keep looking.

    And what is this nonsense you wrote: "As far as we know the universe is infinite (again, there is no reason to think otherwise)."

    It may be "known" only to you.
    No one has any idea whether the universe is finite or infinite. But "you" must know... 🙂

    "There is no reason to think otherwise"... really? On what basis do you say that?

    Nissim, your whole response is horribly stupid.

18. elbentzo
    I agree with you. It's a shame that Bayes' Law is not taught in compulsory education.

19. Miracles,

    My example with the tower and your example with the salt talk about completely different things. The salt is indeed described in a very good approximation by absolute randomness without a preference for one or another dispersion, and this is as a result of the chaotic nature of the process (the number of random variables on which the density function depends and their nature is such that there is approximately no pattern in the dispersion). Therefore your example only shows the absurdity of a retroactive calculation of probability - the specific scattering that was created on the carpet did happen and therefore the probability of it really was approximately 0, it doesn't matter. What I was talking about is the opposite side of the scale - their processes have a significant preference for certain outcomes and therefore we have no ability to construct a probability density for them unless we fully understand the physics and chemistry behind them (and when it concerns the creation of life and its development, we still don't).

20. Eddie
    I want to expand on the probability. Let's assume, again, that the only explanation for the formation of life is that a cell formed spontaneously (this is not true, but never mind).

    Does improbability completely rule out the idea of ​​spontaneous life formation?
    Do you have another explanation?
    Is there only one explanation?
    What is the probability of the correctness of this explanation?

    Let's assume the only explanation is God. Is this a good God? Does man have a special meaning in this world? Is there only one god? Does it still exist?

    Why am I rowing? The explanation of God raises many more questions than answers. It also contradicts what I know about the world...

21. elbentzo
    I like to explain it this way: take a cup of salt and sprinkle it on the carpet - what is the probability of getting the scattering of crystals you have now? If we assume that the world is continuous, the probability comes out to be 0 ….

22. Eddie
    From everything you said (which I don't agree with, but it's not important) - I didn't understand exactly what the question was.
    If you meant what I said about life on other planets - then I will explain again. We cannot say for sure that there are planets with water that do not have life on them. More than that - we know that the earth is infested with life and that life has a miraculous ability to survive. Therefore - I think it is correct to assume that where there is liquid water then life (or maybe fossils) will be found.

    Now I will use your way to "prove". As far as we know the universe is infinite (again, there is no reason to think otherwise). If so, it doesn't matter what the probability of the formation of life is, then life will inevitably be formed in an infinite number of places. As Gal-Mann said - what is not impossible must happen.

    Regarding the feelings I mentioned - they all have a biological basis. They all exist in other animals - do you think there is anything that prevents us from studying other animals?

    And as Pascal said, I understand you didn't have time to write a short response.

    Eddie - please, calm down a bit. My comments are not intended to convince you or people who believe like you. My goal is to open the mind a little for those who are interested in understanding why I think it is permissible to think that there is no God.

    I want to end on a philosophical point. Let's assume that there is no way to create a living cell because of the low probability (assuming a company of significance of course). I suppose the reason for this is the enormous complexity of a minimal cell that knows how to replicate, change and inherit such changes. Can you rule out the idea that creatures with a much simpler structure evolved elsewhere and are the ones that produced the first cell? (Think of the most sophisticated robot imaginable - it is certainly simpler than a biological cell.)

23. Hello to Nisim and Eddie,

    I have no intention of getting into your argument because it seems pointless to me. But I did follow your correspondence and there is something I wanted to comment on, and that is the subject of probability (specifically regarding the spontaneous creation of a cell or more generally, for example in the case of mutations in the DNA sequence, etc.).

    To calculate the programming (the future, for that matter) of any natural phenomenon, we must know how to model the probability density function. And this means - necessarily knowing how the system reacts to any change in its parameters, that is, what forces act on it, what chemical reactions, etc.

    I will explain through an example:
    Suppose I stand at the top of a tower and drop a ball. I can ask what the probability is that it will hit the point right at the foot of the tower. Let's make two assumptions here - the first is that the ball will fall downwards and therefore will definitely land on the surface of the Earth. The second is to divide the surface of the Earth into small squares measuring cm by cm, and this is to avoid continuous probability and to move to simpler calculations of discrete probability. That is, we will be asked what is the chance of falling exactly in the square that is at the foot of the tower.

    The surface area of ​​KDA is about 500 million square kilometers, which is 5 times 10 to the power of 18 square meters. That is, there are 5 times 10 to the power of 18 possibilities, so we can say that the probability that the ball will fall at the foot of the tower is 2 times 10 to the power of minus 19. Although not close to 10 to the power of minus 50, we will agree that it is a pretty zero chance.

    Now let's understand where the nonsense is here: by assuming a uniform distribution (that is, if there are X possibilities then the probability of each of them is 1/X) I ignored the gravity of KDA. This force dictates that the probability of falling in the square below the tower is 1 and in all the rest it is 0 (neglecting winds, Coriolis force, etc.). That is, the forces acting fully dictate the probabilities and because I did not model them correctly I got a stupid result.

    We still do not have a map of all the physical and chemical processes involved in the creation of organic matter. The molecules in question are quite large and contain a very large and non-trivial distribution of charges, for example, and we still do not have the ability to solve the multitude of equations derived from this and to give a prediction to the behavior of the molecules, not on the classical level and certainly not from a quantum point of view.

    All the calculations that have been presented to date for the probability of spontaneous creation of organic matter, or the probability of creating a "positive" mutation, etc. - all of them, without exception, made clearly unjustified assumptions about the probability density of the physical and chemical processes that fully control the interaction. The truth is that until we fully understand how these processes occur from a physical and chemical point of view, talk about calculating their theoretical probability is just talk that usually stems from one agenda or another.

24. Albenzo –
    Thanks.

25. Miracles,
    The truth is that I don't have enough time to waste and waste it on you and your thoughts. Judging by the huge amount of your comments on the site, you have a lot of free time. As I am busy with useful work, I do not have this privilege... except at a late night like this hour.
    Do you know what your problem is? That you don't understand that in order to assert scientific claims of any truth value, speculation is not enough, but a minimal empirical infrastructure and a theory that is at least reasonable. To understand this, you should look at the works of the philosopher of science Ze'ev Bakhler. Until you understand this, and as long as you continue to rely on speculations and present them as claims worth referencing, while at the same time shifting the burden of proof onto the shoulders of those who ask you for evidence of your words - you are not eloquent, you are simply a plagiarist or a clown. For your benefit, I will assume that the second option is the correct one, finally, clowning is a profession that respects its owner - some people make a good living from it .
    The problem is that jokes along the lines of "as far as we know - tens of millions of species live on every planet that has liquid water", you can laugh and laugh as long as you don't find out that behind them are fanatics, a kind of UFO enthusiasts and/or imaginary percentages of panspermia fever who believe in it , and when someone tries to make it difficult for them, they start religious wars... and then they suddenly become the knights of the Enlightenment (defenders of 'science', and knowers of the 'philosophy of science', Aalek).
    By the way, I'm still waiting to know about the sources you know, from which your enlightened and wonderful scientific knowledge about the presence of 'millions of species' on every planet that has 'liquid water' comes from... and by the way, is it possible that the source of this knowledge is some book from the field of science fiction? Finally, this too is 'science' at least in name...
    In any case, you will not be able to throw the burden of proof on me to deny this fever-stricken claim...or any other delusional claim.... 
    And if we are dealing with a delusional claim, Lamore's interesting claim caught my eye: "Science knows how to talk about love, honesty, integrity, loyalty, beauty, friendship, jealousy, happiness and fear." Well, we confirmed that it was nonsense. Since science ('accurate') is a matter of legality (that's what you said, didn't you?) and can be expressed in a mathematical formula, if you were right we would lose love, honesty, etc. 'their experiences'. 'Scientific' fanaticism is a terrible thing, but if it is also 'romantic' - it is a real disaster .
    It is clear from your words that the question of probability is not important here. It is only important to throw out names of researchers with 'scientific' 'theories' on the question of the origin of life, as if from a peddler's box. I'm not surprised at that, because why do prophets of science like you bother with probabilistic trifles? It is better to envision spectacular demagogic 'scientific' visions that appeal to the imagination! The point is that any serious scientist with a critical sense must consider the probabilistic aspect of his theory, if he is really serious. And what to do, there were researchers who bothered to do the dirty work of these probability calculations. To the best of my memory, Prof. Troup, an Israeli biologist who researched and taught at the University of Pennsylvania (and in Israel at Ben Gurion University. At the time he also published on the subject in Hebrew - you can find it in the National Library), made such calculations 30 and 20 years ago, as did others before him, and also Many follow him to this day. Check and find out. Everyone made their own calculation based on reasonable assumptions according to their scientific concept, but the common denominator for all of them is the practically zero possibility of a spontaneous process to create the first cell. At the foundation of the probabilistic argument is Ferguson's theory (and similar ones) according to which any biological process whose probability is less than a certain value (in the case Ferguson's - less than a value of ten to the power of minus 50) has no practical programming and has never happened. (By the way, in the term 'material' that I used in my previous response, I meant that there is no participation of an immaterial factor in the process. I hope that your reading comprehension problem in this matter has at least been resolved ). And now, don't talk about 'Bayesian probability' - first of all because there is no guarantee that you know about all the possible explanations for the question of the origin of life - in your opinion, no one knows it, and you yourself have already claimed that we may never know! And secondly - because you don't even have the tools or possibility to start ruling out various 'explanations' that have been proposed, simply because they usually cannot be ruled out (and anyway - not provable either), in fact, they are not 'scientific' explanations at all.
    And finally, I don't intend to drag into 'religious wars', it's simply not relevant, and I won't let you use this despicable strategy of yours to deviate and avoid the main point, what's more, your concepts and knowledge about religions (from a historical, philosophical, practical point of view) are, in my opinion, so limited and disrupted , that you yourself are not even able to stand for it.
    In any case, before you gobble up your 'matters of religion', here and now I ask you again, in the name of all your self-proclaimed honesty and integrity (and this is a 'scientific' matter - isn't it?) Please tell us how it is and where it comes from "as far as we know - about Every planet that has liquid water on it, tens of millions of species live"?
    And this time don't avoid giving an answer!

26. Roy
    You are not quoting me... you are quoting another person named Eddie. I would never use such words, and I would never mention probability. Then direct your comments to the appropriate person. OK?

    About life on other stars. The claim I was referring to is that there is no life on other planets. Overall, I showed that this claim is not a logical attack. We cannot say with certainty that there is no life on other planets, and I say that we have no reason to think so - that's all. You did not understand me? I'm sorry I wasn't clear.

    Now you say you are only talking about mammal teeth…. And even here you are wrong. There are different types of teeth in mammals - incisors, canines and molars. Each has a different use. All mammals have 4 limbs - here's a better example for you. But - all this means is that all mammals may have a common ancestor. Darwin thanks you for strengthening his thesis. me too.

    Not all wings are triangular in shape. Really, really not. The wings are meant for flight... Wow, what a genius idea 🙂 What were you trying to say here????

    Nature has no knowledge. Nature does not make things. If you have time - I will be happy to explain to you how the wings have developed over the years. And again - I will have to explain 4 times because they evolved at least 4 times....

    Regarding the rat (I guess you know that there are no moles in Israel - right?). Are you saying he lost his sight? What - did he evolve?? Not true!?!?!?!?!? I didn't know that 🙂 Jokes aside - what you described is very logical and very inappropriate for the planning of someone who knew what was going to happen.

    Please - take your political views somewhere else and cry there. There is a lot of justice in your words - but this is not the place to talk about it.

    Religion was not necessary for the development of science. On the contrary. In any case, if you don't know physics, chemistry, biology or mathematics - at least learn a little history.

    If you want to learn - this is an excellent place. But stop teasing and showing off the knowledge you don't have. I would be happy to talk to you and explain what I know and do. Just don't treat me like an idiot.

27. Nissim - regarding the last line in your comment about me - you tried to exclude and exclude me from any relevance by using words like "troll" and you will learn Hebrew (well, I may have written too quickly...but an arrogant person like you won't think that...but it won't work) Go - be smart enough to listen ... .. Here is a quote from one of your responses to a nice person named ELBENTZO - "And the probability of a spontaneous material creation of such a first cell (according to any hypothesis that is possible today) is of the order of one divided by 10 to the power of several tens to two hundred zeros".
    a) Who said that a cell was created in a "spontaneous material way". Who even understands your concept "spontaneous material".... 🙂
    b) Who made this calculation that you rely on?
    c) Who thinks that probability speaks of an event that happened? Certainly not someone who understands probability…. Your entire probabilistic description is completely wrong.
    d) Who said that life began on Earth?
    e) Where does the puzzling statement come from that there are many more stars than planets? I don't think there is anyone who can point to even one star and say there aren't at least 2 planets." - First thing you wrote towards the end that there is no "no" at least 2 planets - well write "to" - why don't you know Hebrew?.... You wrote "My argument is simple. To contradict it - you need to find a planet with liquid water on which there is (and never was) life. Do you know one?" - But you initially said "as far as we know - on every planet that has liquid water on it, tens of millions of species live" as if you said....I will throw out a hypothesis even if it is not true....Now go try to contradict it...break your head, It's already taking you out of context... you're not talking logically here... you're contradicting yourself, I don't understand you,
    Now ... I talked about the development of the wings of birds and bats and teeth .... I specifically said that here is the pattern of the teeth designed to cut and tear food in order to make it easier to swallow it in the stomach... in all mammals including all of them..

    I said that the birds and all flying animals developed wings that helped them stay in the air - the same aerodynamic structure for all of them in order to maximize the animal's stay in the air - you tried to contradict me and wrote - "in addition, today there are fish with a very partial ability to fly, and reptiles with an even more partial ability to fly. And of course, there are mammals that develop the ability to fly, such as possums in Australia." - Well, this does not contradict me... I noted that flying animals have an engineering pattern in their wings, they are designed to hover, they are a "triangle" shape, they are designed to cut the air and pierce it - how... and why did nature (a fundamentally still thing) know that in order for a mutation over millions of years to build certain cells in a certain structure in order for that structure (wing) to be able to lift.... Now you can tell me... mmm all the animals died that didn't succeed in flight (natural selection) and only those who succeeded are alive today.... well this still doesn't contradict me - How did nature know or in short how an inanimate thing knows
    That's what a wing looks like,
    Now the eyes - you wrote - are even easier to dismiss. The eye has evolved about 40 times in animals. More than that - the eye also degenerated several times - in rats, cave spiders and certain fish. Does this look like planning to you?" - Yes! Because they are the only ones alive today...and they don't need to absorb photons of light in order to survive apparently....planning - everything is well planned in order to allow maximum survival in a minimum (relative) time for that organism when it can't see then its hearing improves... (a bat "and its sonar") more Evidence - Moles often have brown and thick fur. She lives under the surface of the ground and rarely comes out above them, and because of that she has almost completely lost the ability to see, since her eyes are very small. During its life it builds a branched system of burrows, instead of its eyes, the mole uses its nose and ears to find its food. There is enough light so apparently the eyes that have developed for him are not necessary in order to survive on the condition that he survives now (under the ground) and therefore I will gradually eliminate his absorption of photons and improve his sense of smell and hearing - why does nature work this way? Have you ever thought about it...hey, you yourself said here that "no one said it was random" you know what....how did a stationary thing like the stars and the super novae they created create self thinking systems - which are so sophisticated...with billions of neurons in the head And with the ability to receive light optically! Consciously that this is how the vision should be channeled optically by trial and error during thousands of years of tremendous engineering development! Unparalleled JUST INCREDIBLE…. Just like that...again I'll say I'm not innocent - and there are people here on the forum who say I don't have the "necessary knowledge" or you should study theoretical physics at the university - so I'm not going to study "theoretical physics" because I don't have enough money (for now) to please the deans There with their inflated egos .. and the admission conditions there are ridiculous and prevent me from getting into it and I'm not going to improve my chances of being accepted into it because it's a waste of time and money. In a capitalist and cruel world like ours .. so it's better to study it alone as a hobby for the time being until the situation in the country is satisfactory Our "social socialist" who oppresses her citizens in order to support opponents and commanders in this fat army that takes away our apartments and free education like in Europe and the ability to move forward in life (socio-economically and academically). But that's already a deviation from the topic and a completely different story. In short.. well I won't try to disrespect you because I respect you and like you I see you as people who like to contribute to humanity and push us forward... but be careful because science also has a dark side believe me... not just religion... which by the way was necessary for the development of science .. Good Day (:

28. Roy Shalom,

    I tried to conduct a dialogue and present to you as clearly as possible the positions and opinions that are contrary to yours, but you managed to convince me beyond any shadow of a doubt that there is no chance of that. It is clear that you did not devote more than a split second to my response because in your second response you simply ignored everything I wrote and again repeated the same claims that are completely wrong, and which can be summed up in the sentence "I don't understand it, so it has no value".

    If you want to know why the vacuum must have fluctuations, study physics.

    You want to know what the phrase "singular point" means, study physics.

    Want to know what E=Mc^2 really is (!”)? Learn physics instead of making up your own explanations.

    The "pattern" you showed me that shows that evolution is unlikely, is a jumble of nonsense that stems from your lack of understanding.

    No one said that "everything is random" or that "there is no pattern". Science is based on identifying patterns in nature. Want to know what they are and how to identify them? Study physics.

    Do you want to know why two molecules will connect and undergo one or another development process? Of course, there are precise and clear answers to this. Study physics or chemistry.

    Want to know what gravity is? Study physics.

    Do you recognize the pattern yet? Or does it all seem random to you? You are simply a person who has not studied the relevant sciences since his days, did not try to investigate or learn the enormous amount of knowledge that the human race has accumulated in the last hundreds and thousands of years, and as a result you do not understand anything about these subjects - instead of studying in order to, or alternatively realizing that you do not understand and putting up with it, you decided Come up with alternative solutions inside your head and challenge the world of science. Because if you pose questions that take many years to learn the answers to in academia, and you don't get answers to them that satisfy you in a talkback of a few lines on the science website, this is a sign that scientists don't understand anything and you're right, right?

29. An extreme secularist
    Besides attacking those who disagree with you and flattering those who do agree with you - do you have anything to contribute to the discussion?
    And to start calling left-wing people is not a contribution, try to grow up, okay?

30. Eddie
    Your first part is beside the point and I will not address your arrogance in this part.

    1. I didn't understand what you were trying to say. What Mario Livio said is that we are not in the center, and this is what Copernicus and Darwin showed us. Please don't put words in his mouth.

    2. My argument is simple. To contradict it - you need to find a planet with liquid water on which there is (and never was) life. Do you know one?

    You wrote, "and the probability of a spontaneous material creation of such a first cell (according to any possible hypothesis today) is of the order of one divided by 10 to the power of several tens to two hundred zeros".
    a) Who said that a cell was created in a "spontaneous material way". Who even understands your concept "spontaneous material".... 🙂
    b) Who made this calculation that you rely on?
    c) Who thinks that probability speaks of an event that happened? Certainly not someone who understands probability…. Your entire probabilistic description is completely wrong.
    d) Who said that life began on Earth?
    e) Where does the puzzling statement come from that there are many more stars than planets? I don't think there is anyone who can point to even one star and say there aren't at least 2 planets. (Maybe I'm wrong here).

    3. This piece of yours is cheap and annoying demagoguery. Tell me - what is the basis for your statement that there is no more life in the universe? The fact that they didn't get here? Where exactly did we get to - the moon?

    4. What? First, don't expect anything from me - just ask. I don't understand this whole thing. You must simplify things and stop exploding with irrelevant words. This is not the place for new age...
    I will say again - the concept of probability has no place here. If anything - use the concept of Bayesian probability. For those who read here who do not know everything (like you) I will explain what is meant. I'll start with Sherlock Holmes' sentence - if you've ruled out all but one explanation, then it doesn't matter how improbable the remaining explanation is, this explanation must be true. What happens with 2 explanations left? You need to see what the relative probability is for each explanation. Can you show me the probability of God's existence? I need a number …. Otherwise there is nothing to continue in this direction.

    5. Ah … now Mario Livio is not the issue …. Sure, because it's not convenient for you. You, who say you are an expert on the subject (you know what a dilettante is, right?) decide what questions the article should discuss. Nice attitude 🙂
    In any case - do you know the existing theories? Have you read Manfred Egan's articles for example? Cairns-Smith's? Wickramasinghe? Kippers? Have you read anything about it? How dare you rule out theories because they are not "plausible" in your eyes, without knowing what each theory says, and without knowing what plausibility is?

    6. I stated "We will probably never know what was the specific process of the formation of life on our planet" - and I explained why. What is amazing here? What can you explain about the formation of life? I don't close any doors - and I don't have any thesis on this subject. Stop putting words in people's mouths - it's annoying 🙂 I don't have any thesis about the formation of life. I know something like seven theses of other people, people whose line of work is this.
    My thesis is that evolution is a "stronger" process than any process we call planning. If you want - you are welcome to read the thesis in the university library .... It may be that God (or the Titans, or the Rainbow Serpent) created the world and the first cell. I have no problem adding this as an eighth theory, provided you agree that this creator is not a living creature, and because it is not a living export, it is certainly not an intelligent body, and it has no feelings and desires. You must agree with that, right? But - from this moment on - my thesis is solid and I don't think it can be contradicted.

    7. Forgive me but your use of the term "sex" is wrong and confusing. A species is not created by a combination of mutations. Sex is not "created" at all. Species is a distinction of humans between certain living creatures. We say that two creatures are of different species for several reasons. The best known reason is reproductive segregation. Animal A is said to be of a different species from animal B if these animals cannot interbreed. This is not good enough - a lion and a tiger breed among themselves, and not even some of their offspring are sterile. And of course - most living things are unisexual.
    In terms of evolution - every two living creatures have a common ancestor. But note - man has a common ancestor with two living species - the chimpanzee and the bonobo. That is, there is an ancient animal, some of whose descendants are "humans" and some "ancestors of chimpanzees and bonobos". What do mutations have to do with it? What does the difference in the sexes even mean?
    In general - look at the following: according to science, we all have a common father who lived about 209,000 years ago and a common mother who lived about 200,000 years ago. So when was the first production of the "homo sapiens" species created?

    8. Both Thomas Kuhn and Paul Fairband are philosophers of science... I agree with Fireband on many things - science doesn't always work in an orderly fashion and really sometimes there are things pulled from the hip that become accepted theories. But - these theories still meet Popper's conditions - explanatory ability, predictive ability and the possibility of refutation.

    Science is not an inferior tool to anything except religion - because in religion it is forbidden to ask questions. The first sin, to mention, is the desire to know. What is "truth value" - you must stop using your entire vocabulary in every sentence - I really don't understand what you mean. Science knows how to talk about love, honesty, integrity, loyalty, beauty, friendship, jealousy, happiness and fear. Science also knows how to talk about religion, even though it is jarring for religious people...

    9. I have no idea what you want me to apologize for. I would also be happy if you try to speak Hebrew - or English. What exactly is a "trend"? Can't you say tendency? All your "material" doesn't exactly mean anything either, just a redundant word.

    10. Eddie - I stand by what I said. Science has tripled life expectancy. Religion affects life expectancy. Want samples? Multiplicity of children, blanket opposition to abortion, opposition to vaccines, denial of medical treatment, irrelevant food restrictions, damage to the status of women (in my opinion, this also harms life expectancy - but I cannot prove it), opposition to vaccines, prevention of scientific research (such as the prevention of autopsies , organ donation, etc.), marriage within the community, dangerous religious rites, and surely there is more. Of course not all religions do all of these things, but I don't think there is any religion that doesn't do some of them. In Judaism, I saw with my own eyes couples who insisted on circumcising a premature baby…..

    I can look at religion as one piece - that's my right. You can think differently from me. I am truly aware that every religion sees the other religions as inferior…..especially Judaism. I think what all religions have in common is that they are social systems whose members believe in higher powers that must be satisfied. Does anyone think otherwise?

31. Roy
    You, unlike "Nisim" and his ilk, managed to remain matter-of-fact (despite the spelling errors) in your response, and did not descend into personal lines. And your response shows how much humility a person like you has who respects humanity and seeks a purpose for existence and asks questions, humbles himself, and learns morality - compared to the secular (and probably leftist) commenter who does not understand what purpose you are talking about because he lives in a world where everything is fluctuations of mutations and he cannot distinguish between morality one for another morality.

32. Roy
    The first part of your comment is completely confused, and I couldn't understand what you were trying to say. I will explain myself again, and please, respond clearly. I am saying that we have no reason to think that there is no life on other planets. I say that we have not yet found a planet with liquid water, and we have seen that there is no life on it. Do you think I'm wrong here?

    Regarding aviation - you are wrong. The ability to fly has developed at least 4 times, and it is very possible that it is developing in several more ways even today. We know prehistoric reptiles called "therosaurs" - these reptiles knew how to fly. We know birds, which evolved from dinosaurs that developed their own ability to fly, unrelated to therosaurs. We know bats. And of course we know insects. In addition, today there are fish with a very partial ability to fly, and reptiles with an even more partial ability to fly. And of course, there are mammals that develop the ability to fly, such as possums in Australia.

    Teeth? The teeth in the different species are completely different. Sharks versus mammals versus birds versus octopuses versus annelids (a type of worm).

    eyes? It's even easier to fail. The eye has evolved about 40 times in animals. More than that - the eye also degenerated several times - in rats, cave spiders and certain fish. Does this sound like planning to you?

    You said something funny "even monkeys have fingers"... Have you forgotten that man is a species of monkey? You said you don't believe in creation...

    You said that fish have gills that can isolate hydrogen from oxygen ….. can you say where you learned that? And you're still kidding about science????

    Roy … your last paragraph is interesting. You ask "why". "Why" means that someone did something. I mean - you assume there is a creator. You ask what started it all - and I answer - I don't know, but, I don't think you know who, or what, created God. After all - you are the one who said that it is impossible for something to have always existed....

    Say - do you want to be just a troll or do you want to have a substantive debate? If you want to have a substantive debate, get an education in the fields we talk about, and learn Hebrew 🙂

33. Elbentzo my dear friend .. his rabbi to you ... allow me to explain myself I may not have been understood enough - when I said that quantum theory is just like "magic" I emphasized the word because in my life I was not qualified for the magic of the ray you know that ... why just belittle me - I don't A great understanding of physics, maybe you can explain to me why the universe must have quirks in the void of space and time in order for it to exist... The meaning was that science does not know everything and will not try to contradict things based on (ideas as you said) unproven things... You said that "there is not an iota of magic in it - only phenomena Interesting and beautiful natures that are frequently observed in the laboratory and are explained by mathematical models up to phenomenal accuracy." - Ray There are many scientists who cannot explain many phenomena in it such as the disappearance of the particle and whether the material is made of a string or an atom or in general there are now claims that the speed of light is not constant and it is possible to "get around it" Her... you say that nature is explained by mathematics - here, please, show you the formulas that the universe works according to - this is similar to the translator of a foreign language: the universe said - let's spread out all the particles and then attach them with great force and the more of them you take, they will stick to each other Stronger and faster-interpreted by the translator: E=MC^2. You see where I'm getting at …… you said the universe started from a singular point …..? Do me a favor, what is a point, a singular point - a point where no law of physics applies, everything collapses in on itself and even that science does not know for sure only according to an approximate mathematical model (such as black holes, etc.).....what was before the big bang.... Let me tell you what I think it was - infinity is what it was - the universe is illogical and it is infinite because for everything we know at least... it is cause-effect-cause-effect double infinity you perceive, you...I guess a very person Educated...now we are all looking for the "why" we are here why is the biggest question in the universe...from the dawn of history... Your role as one who catalyzes the progress of our race and its elite...to find this answer before we all get hijacked by a little thing called existential depression...because as soon as you say - you will see everything is random...and there is no pattern and there is no big plan and when you die that's it, it's over for you and we are random mutts ( It is very unlikely according to the pattern I showed you earlier about the development of teeth and wings and that every flying creature has them) that by mistake... we became intelligent and all this just to survive and survive.... Tell me what is evolution what is it? A mechanism for why it exists, why would two molecules connect at all spontaneously and produce any process at all if there is no intelligent intention or something intentional? What is gravitation? This is the "law" in nature, why does it work this way? …….one thing is certain we are stuck here ..and we cannot escape from this infinite prison and we will also die here...then we will become part of the stars and then after billions of years we will become a white dwarf as part of the sun and then we will either REBOOT the universe or we will expand and expand to infinity ….. Dear Sir, I am sad that our world is built like this from absurdity and a lack of “mysticism” it shouldn’t have been like this...developing intelligence is not a supreme quality now that I think about it it is a burden...and a very, very heavy one if you ask me....because knowing that one day it Ends …. And all by mistake .. so at the end of the day no human law has any meaning and it's all nonsense and it disgusts me. Have a good day brother and keep up the absurd life everyone.

34. Hello Roy,

    With your permission, I will try to join the discussion and try to answer at least some of your claims.

    1. To say that as far as science knows there is no intelligent life (or at all) outside the Earth is demagoguery and a cynical distortion of science. This is because we do not have the tools to look for such life yet, but only to look for planets where the conditions seem to allow such life. That's why to say we haven't found something we haven't looked for yet is ridiculous. All we know at the moment is that on a planet with certain conditions life developed, and that there are other planets with the same conditions. Whether or not there is life we ​​won't know until we have a way to actually check the distant planets, but to say there isn't because we haven't looked is really funny.

    2. The fact that you don't understand the quantum theory only affects you, and not the universe or the logic in it. If you wish, register in the upcoming semester for physics studies at the university closest to your home and they will explain quantum theory to you. There is no magic in it - only interesting and beautiful natural phenomena that are frequently observed in the laboratory and explained by mathematical models to phenomenal accuracy.

    3. The mechanisms of life development and species change adapt themselves to the environment. To say that nature "knew" there was air, an atmosphere, etc., and therefore created wings for a bird is like saying that water poured into a glass miraculously "knew" what its shape was - otherwise how is it that the shape of the water I poured into the glass and the shape of the glass match so perfectly?

    4. In a big bang nothing exploded or moved in space-time. It is the space-time spread out from a singular point. Unfortunately, today we don't have the tools (experimental or theoretical models) to describe the first moment after the big bang, so we still don't know for sure what happened there and how. There are currently several ideas, such as fluctuations of the vacuum (if you study quantum mechanics as I explained, you will understand why they exist and in fact it is impossible for them not to exist), or a cyclic universe. But like I said, these are still ideas. There are also very good ideas regarding the fact that the shape of our universe is not a natural characteristic of it, but the result of physical processes (emergent space-time), and as such - time cannot be defined before a certain point. This is just one example of a possible answer to the question "What preceded the Big Bang?"

    5. Asking "who created the material" is like asking "what is the name of the god who shoots the lightning". A stupid question that presupposes its own answer. The right questions are "what is matter made of", "how does it exist" and maybe even "why does it exist". These questions also have answers (we have an excellent, if not perfect, understanding of what matter consists of, and there are many ideas that touch on the questions of why exactly the fields we know exist).

    In other words, we still don't have answers to everything, but that doesn't mean we have to run to mystical explanations. After all, even 500 years ago we didn't know what lightning was, does that mean that then we had to believe that it was Zeus or Thor? All the questions you asked are either solved questions (that you don't know the answer to, but you can only blame yourself for that) or questions that we are working on solving. And finally, I will quote the comedian and poet Tim Minchin who said:

    "Throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be... Not Magic.."

35. Miracles,
    Unfortunately, your words are - as usual when it comes to my comments at least - a collection of pseudo-scholarly statements. And yes, you don't need to repeat in all kinds of variations the statement "I believe fanatically in everything that someone calls 'science', and don't confuse me with counterclaims".
    I also do not understand your tendency to reduce any discussion of claims that question the truth value of scientific or pseudo-scientific or even philosophical claims - to the level of "science versus religion". I didn't talk about religion, and I didn't claim on behalf of religion. I didn't even claim the name of a divine being. I was talking about science, that's all. The tendency of you and your ilk to deal with skeptical claims using the inferior and even despicable strategy of a 'science-on-religion war' is not only pathetic, but reflects a kind of fanaticism that indicates inherent deliberative weakness and intellectual insecurity, not to mention intellectual dishonesty.
    And to the point of your words:
    1. When Livio talks about a 'marginal' place, he doesn't just mean that the person is not central. He devalues ​​human consciousness, as if purely physical size, in material terms of amount of mass and distance, stand at all as a standard for comparison regarding consciousness. This is the depth of the problem in Livio's perception, which even from the point of view of materialism is simply refutable.
    2. You claim: "As far as we know - tens of millions of species live on every planet that has liquid water on it. We have no reason to think otherwise. And we have no reason to believe that there aren't many more planets with liquid water." Wonder where "we know" these 'facts' from. I would be very happy if you would reveal this to us - if you do you will surely be an ultimate candidate for several Nobel prizes. A fundamental reason for scientific 'knowledge' is some empirical basis, or at least a plausible hypothesis at a reasonable level. In the meantime, as is well known liquid water is liquid water, it still does not guarantee anything. For the spontaneous creation of a first living cell, very complex processes are still required, and the probability of a spontaneous material creation of such a first cell (according to any possible hypothesis today) is of the order of one divided by 10 to the power of several tens to two hundred zeros. The number in the denominator is many orders of magnitude greater than the number of all the stars, of course all the planets - together. The length of time required to create such a first cell in a spontaneous material way under the conditions of the earth as far as we know - is much greater than the age of the earth, certainly than the time 'window' that existed on its surface for the creation of the first cell. Now, try to simulate the probability of the spontaneous formation of the second, third cell, in a continuous process... well, really.
    3. You claim: "There is no reason to think that life is unique or disposable. And the word "amazing" has no place in a response that should be factual." And I ask you: and what plausible factual or hypothetical reason do you have, according to the state of scientific knowledge today, to think that the phenomenon of life in all its manifestations, certainly in its intellectual manifestations, is unique? Is having fun with all kinds of pseudo-scientific speculations that lack any factual basis this 'unique' 'scientific knowledge'?
    4. You claim: "The development of life is definitely more than impossible." From a materialist like you, I would expect a much more decisive claim - a claim that explicitly states that the spontaneous development of life according to purely material logic is not only more than impossible but XNUMX percent possible. But let's go. Now, I ask you: on what basis do you claim this? Is a continuous process of spontaneously creating life through known physical processes (both before the spontaneous formation of the first cell, and from the first cell onwards) whose factual probability is from any practical scientific point of view - zero, "definitely more than impossible"? And if you claim that because "life is a fact, it follows that a spontaneous process of its spontaneous material creation is possible and actually happened" I will argue to you right away: this is what is called 'required for the campaign', that is - you cannot rely on the claimed proof.
    5. You may be right in that Livio claimed that the question of the origin of life is unsolved, for the reason that it is impossible to decide between several competing theories. And what about that? It is not from Mario Livio's mouth that we live in this issue. I assume that he, like other dilettantes, do not ask themselves the real questions and they are: 1. Is there even a proven theory with any degree of plausibility in the discussed issue? 2. According to any given theory, is there any practical probability of the possibility of a spontaneous material process according to any known 'theory'?
    6. You state: "We will probably never know what was the specific process of the formation of life on our planet." This is an amazing statement from the mouth of someone who pretended not to already confidently assert that the development of life through a spontaneous material process is "definitely more than impossible". You are actually closing the door to the possibility of refuting your thesis, but at the same time you are preventing real scientific knowledge about your claim - it is unprovable because it is irrefutable. I assume that you yourself understand that your position is nothing less and nothing more than 'faith' - faith, not science!
    7. You claim: "I guess you haven't read "The Origin of Species". The explanation is there, and since then there have been countless confirmations of the mechanism described in the book." Well, I don't know if you've read Origin of the Species yourself, or if you're rambling. I do know you haven't read too many published scientific materials on the issue since then. If you had done so, you would have known that for a new species to be created, much more than one random mutation or another is needed (and by the way, FYI - 'The Origin of Species' does not talk about mutations, Darwin simply did not know about it). In order for this process of creating a new and stable species to take place - several mutations are needed that are all positive, supportive and simultaneous. Therefore, the statement that the question of this developmental process is not completely resolved is well-founded. As far as I know (and I would be happy to receive from you a counter, detailed, scientific explanation that makes sense) there is still no theory that provides a good explanation for the assumed process, although the hypotheses in themselves are not devoid of logic, and it is possible that one of them will also be proven in the future.
    8. You claim: "Science is based on the thought that there are laws in nature. The philosophy of science explains why we believe that this thought is true." I disagree with your understanding of what the philosophy of science explains. I recommend that you review and internalize the approaches of philosophers such as Kuhn or Feyerabend, as well as the Israeli Behler, and in the meantime avoid making a statement of the type you made. As a matter of fact, in matters that science is not capable of and cannot answer - science is an inferior tool for truth-valued sayings. The question of 'man's place' is one of these, since it relates to categories and perspectives that are not material - value, psychological, ontological, epistemological, cognitive, etc.
    9. Regarding your last comment - refer to the introduction to the statement. I demand that you apologize for the shameful innuendo in this comment - I have no idea where you derive the status, authority, justification and courage to slander what you slandered.
    10. I suggest you also reflect on your other assertions in the comment - they do not indicate education or a brilliant intellect, but fanaticism. Note that 'religion' is not made of one skin, and there are also diverse approaches of religions to 'science'. In most historical periods after antiquity, the major religions supported science, and there are many indications for this. The exception is Christianity, in part, in the last hundred and fifty years (the polemic surrounding the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, and even in Galileo's time, does not belong here. Modern research proves that the church's approach to Copernicus' theory was in accordance with the scientific knowledge of the time and the genuine doubts of renowned scientists who then rightly pointed out the weaknesses of the Copernican theory, which was not sufficiently complete and hermetic at the time).

36. For miracles - first thing I'm not religious (I'm a complete atheist) second thing you said explicitly in these words - "I don't understand why you say that life is unique as far as we know - tens of millions of species live on every planet that has liquid water" ... you and your academic degrees?.... the scientific community (because if so, then there is no life on a planet that only allows liquid water according to your method, - and yes, I'm not a great expert.... actually it's just a hobby of mine to talk to other atheists who like existential absurdity... and anthropology... really It's a pleasure to watch you live your life and in the end absurdly for no reason....die just like that....that's one: now about evolution....all her life is flying she has similar wings a pair of aerodynamic bars that allow them to hover in the air and float or all her complex life also has the same Structure of teeth in order to chew and crush food in the mouth …… ok for the most part … “most” animals have eyes that pick up the photons of light and convert it into an image in the brain ….. ok now … I don't know about you but I see a certain pattern in the design of these systems especially the eye From an optical point of view that has developed over millions of years... and intelligence in general, which is an impressive thing in itself... For example, they say (science) that we are smart because we have fingers and that's why we could use tools to cook... and as a result of cooking the meat we became smart. Now ....even monkeys and other species have fingers, don't they? You will agree with me, right?... I have already refuted this explanation because reason A (fingers = cooking food = wisdom) does not lead to result B = ingestion. What do you say about that…….. and in general you said that "there is no such thing as improbable in science" - you said that science deals with what can be and not what can't be????? How do you know what can be...who are you to determine what is possible and what is not? Ray, you yourself said that science is very young and still in its infancy... So please don't argue... One more thing, science does not know the origin of life and how the first organism was created or created for that matter - by the way I do not believe in aliens or bacteria or anything for me as it seems now (scientifically) the earth or in its scientific name Terra is the only planet in the universe that allows life. Final point......please answer me and explain and refute with links if possible please.

37. Roy
    You wrote "as far as I know... we are the only intelligent beings in the universe". So I think that is not the case. We have no reason to think that there are no other intelligent beings in the universe. Science is very young and only in recent years have we learned that our planet is not the only one with suitable conditions for life (of the kind we know).

    Regarding what you said about additional needs beyond water - again, you express a firm opinion without any understanding of the subject. Liquid water means there is an energy source (not necessarily the sun). Life on Earth also exists in extreme conditions, such as high radiation, high heat, etc. There is no reason to think that there is a need for conditions like we have today. Beyond that - life on our planet began about a billion years after its formation - the planet was very, very different from what exists today, so again your assertion has no basis.

    You wrote "Look, it's unlikely...and I'll explain why because in order for nature to "know" how to make wings for a bird so that it can fly in the air, nature knows it's inside a planet with air, doesn't it?...and about air you can tell...now...how does nature know what To produce for that organism in order for it to survive, it does so through a random process of mutations."
    Your religious belief blinds you to reality. Nature does not "know". Nature does not "create". Your solution is ridiculously simple. There were countless random mutations. A very small part survived. Obviously - the part that survived exactly suited the conditions. The fact is that while the earth changed - the species changed accordingly - in the same process of natural selection.
    Apart from that - "unlikely" - is a concept that does not exist in science. It is an invention of religious demagoguery and there is no point in using it. Probability does not speak of what was but of what could be. I understand you haven't studied probability yet….

    Roy - do you want to leave the assumption that there is a God and from that explain the world? Please - but then I have a lot of questions for you...
    In contrast to you, I look at the world - and try to see if the world obliges God. My conclusion is no. Meanwhile, your arguments are weak and factually incorrect.

    I'd love to continue chatting with you, if only you'd be willing to listen.

38. Robin
    It is not clear to me that your rudeness is higher than my lack of clarity...or that my sense of humor is worse than usual....

39. Miracles ..as far as I know (and science - which is based on observations and concrete evidence) we are the only intelligent beings in the universe - unless you saw in the Bible a UFO hovering between Venus and Venus .... and if so ... please send me a picture happy to see the greatest discovery Since the history of civilization. And one more thing you said that wherever there is liquid water there are living dictionaries - wrong! Because there needs to be a number of conditions in order to sustain a living organism, not only water but also enough light from the sun and air and an atmosphere that will protect the planet from super rays and cosmic storms that occur in space... In short, as science calls it... the planet needs to be in the "golden zone" of that star system - One more thing I personally "believe" yes yes I said that word - that there is no logic in the universe there is no logic - and everything is possible, and it is enough to get frustrated with quantum theory which is simply magic in the literal sense - particles disappear from reality and return spontaneously.... you will understand.... Now... to come and say that everything is random... look, it's unlikely... and I'll explain why, because in order for nature to "know" how to make wings for a bird so that it can fly in the air, nature knows it's inside a planet with air, doesn't it?... and air can be predicted... Now...how does nature know what to produce for that organism in order for it to survive, it does it through a random process of mutations? of trial and error?...How does he even know that two aerodynamic rods are needed in order to fly in the air?....what does he have a blueprint built into him........you understand where I'm heading... Condition B, do you understand?) The same thing with gills for fish - which have the ability to isolate hydrogen from oxygen....gravity....what is it and why is it? What was before the "big bang"? Because in order for something to explode (or spread throughout space and time) it had to have already been promoted.... quantum fluctuations had to have already existed and in general why did those fluctuations even exist? And who or what created the matter....ahhhh or maybe you will say everything already existed from time immemorial and the universe, space and time are eternal or there are laws of physics that are very, very different in purpose from what we know....what would you say? I challenge you to deny me.. please be respectful. Good day friend

40. Miracles, I see your response as a crime against humanity.
    and causing existential depression to entire future populations in the future
    I ask you to come back yourself. Good Day

41. The article is carelessly edited and does not reflect Prof. Livio neither in terms of the eloquence of the lecture nor in terms of the sharpness of the message.

    And thanks to the commenters - because if it weren't for a few comments here, I would think that the very article that revolves around the Copernican revolution that has been going on for hundreds of years - is unnecessary. The responders came and showed by personal example that there are still people with us for whom the world revolves, the sun rises and sets for them only to make the evening pleasant for them.

    There are still people who are the pinnacle of existence, the crown of creation, with the choice, the peak of wisdom, the center of the pile - they and zero more.
    And for them, people like Prof. Livio bother and tell news from two hundred and one hundred years ago.
    And kudos to him.

42. Eddie
    Your opinion is clear and you should not have repeated "I believe in God" in so many variations. But let me address a few things you said.

    The meaning of the term "marginal location" is as opposed to "central location". We feel that we are in the center, because everything that is far from us recedes. We (those who deal with science) believe that the universe looks the same everywhere, therefore there is no centrality to our location. You have the right to think differently, but this thought has no physical justification.

    I don't understand why you say that life is unique. As far as we know - tens of millions of species live on every planet that has liquid water on it. We have no reason to think otherwise. And we have no reason to believe that there aren't many more planets with liquid water.

    You wrote "the very phenomenon of life and of intelligent recognition - it is unique, it is one-time, it is amazing". As I said, there is no reason to think that life is unique or one-off. And the word "amazing" has no place in a response that should be factual

    You wrote - "and from a probabilistic point of view it is no less than impossible". You are right - the development of life is definitely more than impossible. But, I guess that's not what you meant.
    What interests me - is how do you determine the likelihood of an event that you claim is a one-off?

    Mario Livio writes that the question of the origin of life is unsolved. True - we know several different possibilities for the development of life. We don't know which one, and maybe it's another possibility that we haven't considered yet. And let me tell you a secret - we will probably never know what was the specific process of the formation of life on our planet, but we will prove that there is only one possible way.

    You wrote "the mechanism of the development of new species is not completely resolved". You are just completely wrong. I guess you haven't read "Origin of the Species". The explanation is there, and since then there have been countless confirmations of the mechanism described in the book.

    You wrote "Furthermore, it is not clear to me why the scientific distinction from the point of view of the natural sciences is the only one that comes into consideration when it comes to assessing the place of man. With all due respect to 'science', there are additional perspectives for examining man's place, and no less legitimacy."
    This is exactly the meaning of science! Science is based on the thought that there are laws in nature. The philosophy of science explains why we believe this thought to be true. Have you studied these topics - or are you just rambling?

    Your last paragraph is ridiculous and rude. It is religion that stops man, not science. Science raises questions and seeks answers. Religion gives answers and forbids questions. It's not just that the person was punished for wanting to know.... Knowledge is the enemy of religion, and the religious leaders knew this many, many years ago.

    And what did science do? A third of life expectancy….. not something in your eyes I know…..

43. If the expansion of the universe is accelerating, is it not possible to calculate backwards according to the rate of expansion when the expansion was 0 and what was the size of the universe at this stage and is this the point of the big bang and did the universe shrink before the bang and the expansion? It is possible that this is a cyclical process.

44. Mario Livio's criteria for 'centrality' - not understood.
    There is no 'central point' in the universe, and no section of space is 'better' than another - and if so, what justifies Mario Livio's assertion that our place is 'marginal'? So what if planet Earth is a small star in a medium-sized solar system in an average 200 in XNUMX billion galaxy? So what if the universe is expanding exponentially?
    In addition, it is not understood why the very unique feature of a life, and even more than that - of a life that has supreme intelligence - is so not considered by Mr. Livio. Even if it is assumed that on the biological level man is a certain developmental result, still the very phenomenon of life and intelligent consciousness - it is unique, it is one-time, it is amazing - and from a probabilistic point of view it is nothing less than impossible. In fact, it is not even possible to begin to understand it - and Mario Livio himself admits that the question of the origin of life is unsolved. In fact, even more 'advanced' questions, such as the mechanism of the development of new species are not completely resolved, but Mario Livio does not deal with such 'trivials', since he is not a researcher in the field and lives from the orderly reading of books that are the product of the temporary scientific consensus (books that contain correct answers', which are disproved every new generation). And all the wild guesses about the possibility of life (and intelligent life to be exact!) anywhere else, which people like Libio blossom with such intolerable lightness, will not help here!
    Beyond that, it is not clear to me why the scientific distinction from the point of view of the natural sciences is the next unit in consideration regarding the assessment of man's place. With all due respect to 'science', there are additional perspectives for examining man's place, and no less legitimacy.
    In any case, such a severe 'scientific' devaluation of the uniqueness of the human race as if it were only 'derivative' is not only wrong in itself, but opens the door to intellectual, moral and social degradation. Because if the whole human reality is a marginal naturalistic matter - what will really push him to advance and surpass 'himself'? After all, instead of learning 'modesty', it is much more likely that he will adopt ways of pride, lewdness, promiscuity and finally wickedness? I definitely agree with the point that there is a lot of empty pride in the perception and attitude of his heart, and in my opinion it is much more serious than just superficiality and stupidity. And this is just a point of departure and the beginning of other, more serious illnesses.

45. Hanan Shaliv
    Let's make some order. Copernicus is not the first to think that the sun is at the center, and Darwin is not the first to think about evolution. The idea of ​​the sun at the center existed at least 2000 years before Copernicus (the first description I know is from a Greek philosopher named Aristarchus). The idea of ​​the development of species from other species is also very ancient - one of the first to come up with the idea is Anaximander, who lived almost 2500 years before Darwin. Darwin's innovation - natural selection - is also known from before Darwin (a man named Patrick Matthew wrote about natural selection 30 years before Darwin's book).

    On the other hand, until Copernicus and Darwin, these ideas did not catch on. I think this is the norm - ideas simmer until the right person comes along, puts things together, and publishes them in the right place.

    I don't think scientists work in a vacuum. It is hard for me to think of a case where a scientist came up with a revolutionary idea that did not follow from trying to explain observations.

46. The discussion about his claim regarding the "gothic breakthrough" of Copernicus and Darwin is very interesting, I would like to add another one. Is this kind of "breakthrough" the result of an intellectual "climate/environment" as claimed for example in the book "Einstein and his contemporaries", or is there only a "spin jump" of a single genius without whom it is possible that the knowledge whose influence on humanity would have, if at all, come decades later years and more.

47. Aryeh Seter
    Read the rest of the paragraph - it's about Copernicus and Darwin. The two scientists who changed the world - everyone should know before commenting on a scientific website...

48. point
    I do not like the name you have adopted, because it may confuse in various cases with a real point. I also don't like that Tzipi Livni called her movement "the movement", and the reasons are similar. For my part - call yourself Brunhilda, provided that it is clear that it is a person's name and not a noun.
    As a matter of fact: Mario Lobo claims that Copernicus and Darwin kicked us from the center of the universe, which is a huge revolution in human thinking. The claim is that these two scientists did it in 2 different fields (astronomy and biology). They are the ones who kicked us, not Professor Mario Lobo.
    And that drops the basis for the claim you raised, a claim that is also a shame for the body of a speaker.

49. I'm not a religious person but there is something in what the dot says!
    On the other hand.
    I am one of Mario Livio's listeners on YouTube and here I salute him
    His great contribution (also of the Technion) to collective knowledge
    that I can purchase when I'm at home with a cup of coffee.

50. "A very long time" IDF hundreds of years

51. At the beginning of the article it is written: "Definitely. These two great scientists taught us that anthropocentrism..." - which two scientists? No two scientists are mentioned there before!

52. point
    The idea is that man should understand that he is like the other species, and lives on a planet like the other planets. There are immodest people who think that a person has a special status.
    Where is the bragging here?

53. The desire to humiliate others is not a result of modesty.
    Humiliating others does not come from modesty. Modesty is an attribute of a person with himself. Not a trait he forces on others.
    Claiming to know the meaning of things or their meaninglessness and marginality is the opposite of modesty.
    To be able to kick all of humanity from the center of the universe is not the quality of a humble person.

    In short, there is a lot of pride and bragging here. And certainly not modesty. Don't fall into the trap.

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.