What makes the existence of life and the universe seem so improbable? Without question, the incredible complexity of all things is at the heart of the improbability dilemma. And it requires some form of explanation. In order to properly examine improbability, we must first address complexity. How can complexity be explained?
The complexity of the universe is staggering, in some ways beyond human understanding. For many, this fact alone can’t be accounted for without a design, particularly when the only alternative considered is chance. With this comparison, design usually wins over chance, and design implies a designer. Ancient civilizations observed a universe that was much simpler—in their eyes—than the universe we know exists today. Nevertheless, it would have appeared complex enough to invoke a designer. Even a number of natural phenomena that are easily explained today were attributed to gods.
Our present understanding of the universe reveals a universe that is far more complex than the ancients could have imagined. We have the opportunity of looking back in time for answers—back to a time when the universe wasn’t nearly as complex. Through a series of scientific discoveries, simple origins were found to be the precursors of the present universe.
Darwin opened our eyes, albeit slowly, with his insights on evolution. As it pertains to life, Darwin showed us a different way of thinking about the emergence of life. His theory of evolution by natural selection broke down the complexity of life into incremental steps. He managed to shift the focus from the finished product (or the present product) to the steps that led to it. According to Darwin, and verified by other more recent discoveries, life has evolved from simple beginnings—simple relative to its present state. It all began with single cell organisms, and perhaps only one. Now we have a world full of diverse and complex life forms, some containing trillions of cells. Darwin showed that from simple origins, complexity could arise over time, and by a natural process.
Even the life that we see today starts simple, and grows in complexity. For example, a tree begins with a single seed, and grows to a complex structure of roots, branches and leaves. When I look at a seed I find it difficult to imagine that a tree can come out of it, and yet it does so naturally. Like the seed of a tree, a human being also has a simple beginning—we were all initially a single cell. You could make the argument that a cell is complex on its own, and it is, however, millions and trillions of cells working in unison is several orders of magnitude more complex. Keep in mind that what we classify as the origin of life—a single cell—is somewhat arbitrary. Even a cell has to be constructed from simpler chemical processes, which at some point we call life. Although life, especially the origin of life, is an amazing and mysterious process, we can clearly see that it moves in a direction from simplicity to complexity.
Now let’s turn our attention to the universe as a whole, and see if the same principle applies. After Darwin had provided an explanation for the evolution of life, it was not automatically assumed that the universe evolves by a similar process. In fact, the idea that the universe was eternal and unchanging was a long-held belief by the general population and scientists alike. This idea took some time to overthrow. But by the mid-twentieth century, new discoveries were pointing directly towards an evolving universe; one which had a beginning.
The big bang is analogous to a cell. Just as a single cell can be viewed as the origin of life, the big bang can be viewed as the origin of the universe. And as I mentioned earlier, a cell can also be thought of as complex, but nowhere near as complex as the life that arose from it. The universe can also be viewed in a similar light. Although the big bang was not necessarily a simple event, it was nonetheless simpler than the universe that emerged from it.
Scientists theorize that a substantial amount of activity occurred at the initial moment of creation. The basic forces of nature emerged (gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces), as well as a host of elementary particles (such as photons, protons, neutrons and electrons). Space and time as we know it were also created. All that and more happened in a tiny fraction of a second. On the surface, this seems to present a problem as far as a simple beginning is concerned, however, there is more to consider.
In spite of this initial creative activity, for the first 300,000 to 500,000 years the universe was nothing more than an enormous cloud of hot expanding gas. Complexity would then increase gradually over time—in a sort of cosmic natural selection. It took one billion years before stars and galaxies formed. A few more billion years before supernovae explosions (the death of stars) created and distributed the heavier elements necessary for life. Simple life on earth emerged 9.9 billion years after the big bang. And from there it would take over 3 billion years of evolution to arrive at modern humans. From this simplified timeline, we can see that the early universe was much simpler than it is now—the result of 13.7 billion years of cosmic evolution.
There is another point worth noting that relates to the discussion. The big bang theory is a theory that describes the universe a fraction of a second after the universe came into existence. The big bang theory is silent on the cause of the creation event. Although scientists speculate on what the cause may have been, the big bang represents the edge of our present ability to understand the universe, a theoretical time barrier that we have not yet crossed. I like the way Bill Bryson wraps up the discussion regarding the cause of the big bang. In A Short History of Nearly Everything, he writes:
“… it may be that space and time had some other forms altogether before the Big Bang—forms too alien for us to imagine—and that the Big Bang represents some sort of transition phase, where the universe went from a form we can’t understand to one we almost can.”
Like a cell, which is created by more elementary processes, the big bang could have been a transition phase that was precipitated by a simpler pre-existing cosmos. Some scientists even suggest that the universe may have been created out of nothing. And by nothing, I don’t think they really mean nothing, but perhaps something very small that we don’t completely understand. Physicists now believe that you have to incorporate aspects of the quantum world in order to understand the big bang. And if you go by quantum theory, particles can spontaneously come in and out of existence from nothingness. That is the nothing that scientists are talking about. Bryson writes: “It seems impossible that you could get something from nothing, but the fact that once there was nothing and now there is a universe is evident proof that you can.” Therefore, if the universe was created from nothing or very little, you can’t get much simpler than that. And if this is even remotely correct, the principle of things moving from simplicity to complexity definitely applies to the universe as a whole.
Having said all that about complexity, let’s insert improbability into the equation. Both life and the universe evolved from simple origins, and through incremental steps, have grown in complexity. Although this does not explain how the simple origin came about, it does show that complexity can be achieved by gradual steps, even if the finished product seems improbable—improbable by means other than design. Also, an after the fact approach of looking only at the finished product can be deceiving, that is in terms of what improbability entails. If something is improbable, does it mean that it can’t happen? And because the existence of life and the universe appears improbable, does it mean that it came about by design?
Let’s begin with a simple exercise. Do you remember what you did yesterday? I mean everything you did yesterday. If you went to work, think about the route you took, and the exact location of the cars you passed. What about the people you met and the exact time you met them. Then there are the phone calls or emails you received. Where did you have lunch, what did you eat, and with whom? What tasks did you perform? And what about after work, what else happened? You get the idea. Although you may think you had an ordinary day, the fact is that the exact details of your day will never happen again. Yesterday, just as it occurred, was extremely improbable. And today, tomorrow, and every other day will unfold in a way that is also improbable.
Now let’s look at another example, something more profound than an ordinary day—your own existence. In order for you to have a life, an almost endless series of events had to occur. Think about the coupling of your parents, and their parents, and every ancestor that came before that. In order for you to exist, every combination of ancestors had to mate, and possibly at the exact time that they did. I will spare you the trouble of going any further down the evolutionary line, but the basic idea is that your life is extraordinarily improbable. And so is my life and everybody else’s. Just because something is improbable, does not mean it can’t happen. The fact is that as long as you have a universe, something has to happen, and that just about everything that happens is improbable.
Therefore, if improbable things happen all the time, does it have to come about by design? I am certain that many would say that it does. They could also argue that the existence of life seems so improbable that it implies a higher order to the universe. Although that may be true, it does not necessarily mean that life was designed. The universe’s enormous scales of time and space allows for limitless opportunities to create. Given the mind-boggling numbers that are involved, what seems improbable or impossible does not necessarily apply to the universe.
We know that the universe allows life, because we find ourselves on a planet that allows life. On the other hand, on all the planets that don’t allow life, there is no one to count the failed attempts, or whether any attempts were made—no one to contemplate why it wasn’t designed to allow life to exist, or if it was designed at all. Although we can’t definitely confirm that life exists elsewhere, we know that life is rare relative to the size of the universe. If life was plentiful, we probably would have found some elsewhere by now. This means that vast regions of the cosmos are without life. And if we could closely observe those regions, we wouldn’t think that they were anything special. We would see planets orbiting stars and swirling galaxies, but this would go on for eons, without any conscious experience. Keep in mind that the process that led to life here on earth is essentially the same process that led to the lifeless regions. Of course, there are a few exceptions. One of which is the earth’s special location.
The location of the earth is an example of something that appears improbable, and thus appears designed. The earth’s location has been called the Goldilocks Zone, taken from the fairy tale Goldilocks and the Three Bears. The obvious reason being that its location is just right (just the right distance from the sun to support life). Of all the possible locations that couldn’t support life, why here? Again you could say that it is by design. But it doesn’t have to be, simply because improbable things can happen, especially with large scales like the universe. With a universe as vast as ours, it is inevitable that some planets will be located in Goldilocks Zones. It may be that we just happen to be here. Not necessarily because it was designed that way, and not merely by chance. But rather by an evolutionary process on a cosmic scale, which moves in a direction from simplicity to complexity. It is a process that creates stars, galaxies, and planets. Sometimes when the conditions are just right, it creates life.
Goldilocks Zones are not only applicable to planets, but the same principle is also present in nature. For instance, let’s examine something that is closer to home, such as the life cycle of a tree. A mature tree can produce at least several thousand seeds in a growing season, which are eventually deposited on the ground. The vast majority of these seeds will never become trees. Usually, only a very small percentage will germinate and grow to become trees. They are seeds that fall in Goldilocks Zones. In this context, a Goldilocks Zone would include fertile soil, sufficient water, sunlight, shade, etc. The probability of any one specific seed becoming a tree is very remote; however, when all the seeds are taken into account, probabilities can be viewed in a different light. We know that some seeds will become trees, because they will benefit from conditions that are just right. What we don’t know is which seeds will be selected by this process.
There is another analogy that I have heard a few times, which deals with the improbability question. This analogy has been used in support of design, and it goes something like this: the world’s oceans, with the comings and goings of its tides and waves could never construct a sand castle. The argument being that it requires a design for something constructive to emerge, and this applies to all the complexity we see today. The problem with this view is that it evaluates design against only one other alternative—whether chance alone could construct the sand castle.
There is another way to look at this analogy, which in my opinion, better shows how seemingly improbable things emerge. I agree that the ocean could not directly construct a sand castle, but it could do so indirectly. Life emerged from the ocean, and gradually made its way on land, and over billions of years evolved into more complex forms. One of these forms, a child, walked on the beach and built a sand castle. Consequently, the sandcastle came about from a complicated natural process that can’t be broken down into simplistic explanations, such as the polar opposites of design or chance. If we could go back in time a few billion years, we would think that the likelihood of a sand castle appearing on any of the world’s beaches would be very low. And yet today, sandcastles regularly appear (and disappear). Therefore, whether we are talking about living planets, trees, or sandcastles—and even if the finished product seems improbable—it doesn’t mean it can’t happen.
References: Bill Bryson, A Short History of Nearly Everything (London: Black Swan, 2004), 31, 32.
If you live in a rural area, as I do, outside of the influence of city lights, you can often get a clear view of the night sky. I don’t normally make a special effort to look at the night sky, but on occasion I am drawn to it. I usually notice the stars when I return home on a clear evening. As I get out of my car, and before I enter the house, the night sky often grabs my attention. I pause for a moment, and try to absorb the enormity of it all. There are no words that come to mind, no thoughts, or even a sense of time. I find it difficult to focus on any particular star or any region of the sky. It’s as if I am staring into infinity—it really is an awesome sight.
The speed of light and the expansion rate of the universe give us an idea of distances. Now let’s take a different perspective and look at content: the number of planets, stars and galaxies. The earth and our solar system are a small part of the Milky Way galaxy, which could be described as a stellar disk about 100 thousand light years in diameter. Our sun is located about 1/2 to 2/3 away from the center of the Milky Way. Galaxies are plentiful, as there are well over 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe alone. In an image known as the Hubble Deep Field, the Hubble Space Telescope was focused on a dark spot in the sky for a period of ten days. The spot was about the size of the opening of a drinking straw, and it covered only two parts in a million of the whole sky. In this very tiny spot 10 thousand galaxies were observed.
Galaxies are not individual objects, but vast groupings of stars. The amount of stars contained in galaxies varies by a large extent. The Milky Way contains at least 200 billion stars. The nearby Andromeda Galaxy—relatively speaking, about 2.5 million light years away from earth—is much larger than the Milky Way, and contains 1 trillion stars. From there, the numbers can get even bigger; the largest galaxy ever discovered consists of 100 trillion stars. Once again, only analogies can put these kinds of numbers into perspective; however, the sheer number of stars is so staggering that even an analogy is somewhat limiting. According to the 2010 NOVA (PBS) documentary Hunting the Edge of Space, there are more stars in the observable universe than grains of sand on all the beaches and all the deserts on earth. Yes, that’s not a misprint—all the beaches and all the deserts on earth. As difficult as that is to grasp, there is more. Imagine if you can, how many planets could be orbiting these stars—and of course you probably can’t. Out of the unimaginable number of possible planets (hundreds have already been discovered), how many of them may be able to support life? The potential is truly enormous.
Physical laws have existed since the beginning of time, but they had to be discovered for science to become relevant. Scientific knowledge was built mainly by a series of small advances and adjustments, however, a few major discoveries by a few scientists have altered the course of the scientific endeavor. The age of modern science was pioneered by men like Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. They began to examine the patterns in nature, and discovered that in some situations the workings of nature could be explained, and even predicted. They found that nature’s harmony was governed by physical laws, which were at least partly accessible to human comprehension. They studied the motion of objects on earth, and then turned their attention to the heavens. They charted the movement of the celestial bodies in great detail, and discovered that the motion of the celestial bodies could also be predicted. The gateway to scientific discovery had been opened—the universe would soon begin to reveal its most profound secrets.
With general relativity, he showed that the effects of gravity are caused by the warping or curving of space (or space-time, but for simplicity I will use the term space). Heavy objects like planets and stars warp the fabric of space, thus creating the effects of gravity. It is similar to placing a heavy ball in the center of a trampoline. Any smaller balls placed on the surface will be drawn to the center, due to the surface being warped by the heavier ball. Bear in mind that a trampoline is a two dimensional representation of what is actually a three dimensional spatial fabric. It does, however, give us a clear visual analogy of how curved space participates in the motion of celestial bodies. In the case of planets and stars, orbits will develop when a stable balance is achieved. The earth can be thought of as moving in a straight line along a curved surface of space. Or as taking the path of least resistance along the distorted spatial fabric, which is created by the sun’s presence.
Some experiments (known as the double-slit experiment and variations of it) have actually shown that a single particle, such as a light photon, can behave as if it simultaneously takes a number of different paths from a source to a target. It is debatable whether this really happens; nonetheless, outcomes are determined by the number of possible paths of the photon, whether or not they are all realized. The photon takes a definite position only when it is observed or measured (when it strikes the target). In between the source and the target, it can be thought of existing as a haze of possibilities.
Imagine you are walking on a terrain of rolling hills; in the distance you can see the horizon. Beyond that point you don’t know what you’ll find. When you arrive at the crest of a hill a whole new landscape appears with its own horizon. This is a common metaphor used to show how knowledge is usually acquired. Each horizon reached often presents another horizon (or question) in the distance.
For some, the existence of the universe doesn’t seem to be a big problem to solve. The standard answer is that God created the universe and that’s it. However, I can’t help but ask two simple follow-up questions: a) Why is there a God in the first place? b) Why is God the way he (she, it) is and not some other way? Do you see how this works, by inserting God as the explanation for the universe we’ve circled back to where we started. In essence the questions are identical. We have merely moved the starting point from the universe to God.
There is also the problem of testing the multiverse idea scientifically. How can we ever verify something outside the boundaries of our vast universe? Hypothetically, even if our science advanced to a point where universes outside our own could be detected, how could we know the full-scale of a multiverse? We would likely be unable to determine how many universes exist in total. Ultimately that’s where I think the multiverse idea falls short in terms of answering question 2. Why is the universe the way it is and not some other way? If we can’t know how many universes exist in total, we can’t explain why our universe is the way it is and not some other way. All possible universes have to exist in order for the multiverse to the job. Or at the very least, it would take an extremely high number of universes.
There is a catch, however; Newton’s laws are not 100% accurate. Absolute space and time is not an acceptable assumption when dealing with extreme scales of the universe, a reality that was hidden from Newton in his time. The modern laws of physics question our everyday concept of time. In the early 1900s, 
With Einstein’s revision of Newton’s ideas we have to envision a universe where each celestial body and each observer (what concerns us) carries their own clock with them. With relativity, the passage of time is relative to influences of mass and motion. In short, massive objects like stars and planets cause space and time to warp, resulting in gravitational effects and slowing down time. Also, time elapses slower for an object in motion than for an object at rest; the discrepancy in the passage of time gets proportionally larger as the speed increases. Even though it can be said that time runs at different rates (or two observers disagree on the passage of time), each perspective is equally valid. When one observer moves relative to another observer, clocks will not agree.
Is there anything in science that indicates an arrow of time? There is a concept in physics called entropy, which may give us an arrow of time. Simply stated, entropy is the measure of disorder, and the implication of entropy is that physical systems move towards a direction of increasing disorder. The reason being, that there are many ways in which disorder can come about. Conversely, there are few ways that order can be achieved.
Our experience shows us that many things only happen in one direction, and usually in the direction of more disorder. For example: A glass can fall to the ground and break, but a glass can’t reassemble by itself. A drop of ink can mix in water, but the ink can’t come back together into a drop. An egg can be broken, but can’t reassemble back into the shell. This is entropy at work, and possibly the scientific reason behind our common-sense experience of an arrow of time.
Does time really flow like a river? Even from a common sense perspective the distinction of past, present and future is relative to the individual. For me, someone who lived many years ago existed in the past. Someone that will live 100 years from now will exist in the future. That’s all from my perceptive or from my point of reference. From the perspective of a historical figure, like Einstein, he lives in the present and I will exist only in the future. With each moment there is no essential difference, no temporal absolute, just the relative perspective of each individual.
It wasn’t until 1915 when 
Another breakthrough came from a woman named 
The story now shifts to the Mount Wilson Observatory in California. Equipped with a new telescope 
Just as Slipher before him, Hubble had little understanding of General Relativity and failed to recognize the full significance of his discovery. It took a Belgian priest and scholar named 
When one thinks of a satellite it is usually in the form of a man-made object orbiting the Earth. However, by definition a satellite is a moon, planet or machine which orbits a planet or a star. From our vantage point here on Earth, the Moon is the predominant satellite. Long before Sputnik 1 (the first man-made satellite launched by the Soviet Union) the Moon was our one and only satellite. 
The original theory states that a mars-size planet on a similar orbit as Earth struck the Earth on an angle. The collision created the Moon and quite possibly the tilt of the Earth’s axis of 23 degrees. This rouge planet is sometimes referred to as Theia, named after the mother of the ancient Greek moon goddess, Selene. The impact generated intense heat in both planets. The Earth absorbed part of Theia along with her heavy iron core, the lighter rocky material ended up in a ring around Earth’s orbit. From this debris our first satellite would from. Interestingly, the Moon may have been intact after only several decades. Over billions of years both bodies cooled, but not entirely; the Earth still has a largely molten core. The smaller Moon may have completely cooled or perhaps still retains a tiny molten core. 
The two prominent heavenly bodies are the Sun and the Moon. Much of the Sun’s influence on the Earth is clearly recognizable; the Moon, however, affects us in more subtle ways. The warmth of the Sun (or lack of it on some days) is an everyday experience. In ancient times the Sun was worshiped by some cultures as godlike. It would have been clear then, as it is now, that without the Sun the Earth would be void of heat and most likely without life.
The Earth and the Moon have been united by gravity for over 4 billion years. It is hard to know for sure what the Earth would be like without the Moon. Would there be life? If so, what would it look like? Nevertheless, if there was no Moon and life did manage to evolve, it would almost certainly be different.
Why are we here? This is perhaps the most fundamental philosophical question. One can imagine contemplating this question at any time in human history. Many stories have been inspired by this question, usually taking the form of myths, or religious and spiritual traditions. Today, ‘why are we here’ is also a scientific question. The anthropic principle arose as a response to the question of human existence. The idea was first proposed in 1973 by theoretical astrophysicist
In a vast universe it is not surprising that a planet, like the Earth, has a special location (usually called a habitable zone or a Goldilocks zone). The specific laws of the universe needed for human life are more difficult to explain (usually called fine tuning). Using a legal metaphor, the strong anthropic principle has a greater burden of proof than the weak anthropic principle. In this case, burden of proof is a figure of speech, because the anthropic principle is as much a philosophical idea as a scientific one. 
For example,
Maybe a change of perspective is needed: Instead of focusing on our present circumstances and looking back, we can look at the evolution of the universe. Life is a latecomer to the process, of which an incalculable series of events occurred. Our existence is the result of all that came before. Although it does appear that the universe was made for us, it is in fact, the universe that made us. We were formed from the conditions that were set long before conscious beings could observe any of it.
Of all the so-called big questions, perhaps none inspires more curiosity than the following: Is there life elsewhere in the universe? The question leads to many other questions, speculations, possibilities and impossibilities. In recent years science has made tremendous progress towards understanding the universe, both in what is out there and how it came to be. The number of stars and galaxies is enormous, and we now know that many stars have planetary systems (nearly 2000 exoplanets have been discovered). Some planets outside our solar system are believed to be earth-like, in size, composition and location in relation to their host star.
Numerous unmanned space probes have explored our Solar System. The firsts space probes to visit other planets were launched in the sixties, even before the first lunar landing. By the seventies probes were reaching the outer planets, and in 2015, New Horizons made its historic Pluto flyby (the farthest planet when I was in school). Several rovers have landed on Mars, transmitting images and analyzing soil samples (the first successful mission was in 1976). Presently, the rovers Opportunity and Curiosity are still operating on Mars.
The space probes Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 have completed their missions exploring the planets, and have left the Solar System (speeding away indefinitely). They all contain time capsules, with information about humans and our location in the universe. Incidentally, the well-known image of the pale blue dot was taken by Voyager 1 as it left our Solar System; a snapshot of the earth from 6 billion miles away.
It is possible that aliens have already discovered the Earth; they may even have tried to communicate with us. Some people believe that aliens have visited the Earth, but for a logically minded person the stories are far-fetched. From a scientific perspective, there is no evidence to support such claims. Everything scientists know about space travel makes alien visitations practically impossible. The distances are simply too great; it would take hundreds of generations to make the voyage (unless aliens have lifespans of a 1,000 years or use teleportation and wormholes, though we shouldn’t believe everything we see in Star Trek).
There are a number of fundamental physical constants of nature, in which their values seem to be finely tuned. Examples of such constants are: the speed of light, the strength of gravity, the mass of the elementary particles, and the strength of the atomic forces. The fine-tuning angle comes into play when one considers the exact parameters of the constants. Hypothetically, if one were to adjust the values just a little bit, the universe would be vastly different. This fact alone does not present a problem. However, physicists have noted that minor changes to the values of the constants would not allow life to develop. It is as if the universe knew we were coming, or is it?
The word universe has traditionally been used to describe all that exists. However, cutting-edge physics is requiring that a change of perspective is needed. Through a variety of physical discoveries the idea of multiple universes is being considered. The words parallel universes, parallel worlds, alternate universes, multiverse and others are being used. In the multiple-universe theme, the word universe has a slightly different meaning. Universe no longer means all there is, but rather means a region of a larger cosmos that is separated from other regions.
Not all the multiple universe proposals would yield different values for the constants. Some would produce exact replicas of our universe, or very close copies. Hence the term parallel universe. Yet other proposals would allow for different laws of physics or different values for the constants. These could be universes that are totally foreign and barely recognizable to us.
THE LANDSCAPE OF REALITY 