Life in the Universe – Probability and Perspective

Recommended Pre-Reading:
The Fermi Paradox

When we look up at the sky at night from a place without too much light, we can see thousands of stars. Telescopes and centuries of formal astronomy have shown us that there are billions of stars in our Milky Way galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the observable universe. Considering the mind-bogglingly high number of chances for civilizations to arise, and the incomprehensible amount of time that has passed since the big bang, it seems natural to ask why the sky is so silent. Where are all the aliens? This is famously called the Fermi Paradox. But is it actually a paradox? Do we really have good reason to believe there should be aliens everywhere?

Back in the days of Ancient Greece, Aristotle modeled the solar system—or rather the terrestrial system—with the Earth in the center, and the sun, moon, stars, and planets revolving around it in perfect circles. There is something in human nature that makes it easy to believe that the universe is centered around us. Aristotle’s model survived for over a thousand years into the middle ages, until a troublemaker by the name of Nicolaus Copernicus shook the world with the model we all know today, with the sun in the center and the Earth being a planet, just like all the other planets. Since then, the Copernican Principle has been the idea that there is nothing special about us. We don’t live at the center of the Universe, Earth is not a special planet, the sun is not a special star, and so on. We are an ordinary part of the Universe, just like everything else. Taking the Copernican Principle to its conclusion, it seems the cosmos should be positively teeming with civilizations’ phone calls, TV shows, and internet sites.

On the other hand, we must also consider the Anthropic Principle,* which basically says, “we should not be surprised to find ourselves in a place where intelligent life is possible.” For example, if you were to wake up in a room and find a letter which said, “There are a million rooms just like this one, and only one of them is occupied,” would you think to yourself, “what a miracle it is that I find myself in the only room out of a million that is occupied”? Of course not, because the fact that you are there is what makes it occupied. When applied to life in the Universe, the Anthropic Principle shows us that even if the chances of life arising around any particular star are a soul-crushing one in one septillion (1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or 0.000000000000000000000001) over 13 billion years, it is completely unsurprising that we find ourselves here on a planet that is perfectly suited for intelligent life. In fact, since we have no reason to believe the entire Universe ends anywhere near the edge of the observable universe, it doesn’t matter how infinitesimally small the odds are, there is really nothing interesting about the fact that we exist.

Taking the Copernican and Anthropic principles together, all we can really conclude is that we are probably normal as far as civilizations go. However, we still can make no reasonable guess as to how many civilizations should exist. There might be millions in our own galaxy that we are just on the brink of finding, or there might be no others in the entire observable universe. There are those who claim life should be everywhere, and those who claim Earth is unique. Who is right? We don’t know. What we do know is that neither has a good enough argument to win the debate, because there just isn’t enough data yet.

Click to view larger.

Speaking of data, we can turn this question into a scientific one with the Drake Equation, which says the number of civilizations in a given volume of space is equal to a bunch of stuff multiplied together. Those variables are the rate of formation of stars in that volume that could potentially host life, the fraction of habitable stars with solar systems, the average number of habitable planets per solar system, the fraction of habitable planets where life begins, and the fraction of planets with life that evolve civilizations. I have taken liberties and condensed some of the variables together to make it easier to explain, but that is the gist of it. We know the first three pretty well. Almost all stars have solar systems, and it is quite common for stars to have rocky or ocean planets in their habitable zones. However, Earth is the only planet we know of that has life, and we don’t know how it got started, so we have no idea what the last two variables are. They could be anything from so small that ours is the only planet in the Universe with even microbial life, to so large that we might stumble upon our neighbors’ interstellar radio network any day now.

Talking about the Fermi Paradox has always bothered me. Not because it is a paradox, but because everyone calls it a paradox and I don’t see why. A paradox requires a valid theoretical prediction that either leads to two apparently contradictory conclusions, or disagrees with observational evidence. But the assumption that life should be everywhere in the Universe is not valid, hence no paradox. Regardless, whether or not we are alone is still one of the deepest, most awe-inspiring questions a human being can ask.

*The Anthropic Principle should not be confused with the Strong Anthropic Principle or the Weak Anthropic Principle, both of which apply the Anthropic Principle to the Universe. The Weak AP assumes there is a multiverse, while the Strong AP assumes there is not.

The Question at the Core of Existence

Meaning and Purpose:
Jungian Archetypes
The Most Important Question
Fact and Meaning

A year ago, the intellectual giants Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson got together on Sam’s podcast to talk about the relationship between fact and morality, and ended up arguing for two hours about the definition of the word “truth.” Sam argued for what Jordan called Newtonian truth, which is the set of beliefs that most closely resemble fact, while Jordan argued for what he called Darwinian truth, which is the set of beliefs that lead to the survival and flourishing of humankind. Though they parted on a friendly note, they left with the frustration of talking in circles without end, and their audience felt the same.

From the promotional poster for their Vancouver event this coming June.

Although I side with Sam over this disagreement of definition, the question begs to be asked, what went wrong between them? How can two men with IQs so far through the roof that you couldn’t see them with binoculars disagree so stubbornly about the mere definition of a single word? I suspect it was not about the word at all, but something deeper and more profound than either of them realized. It surrounds a single question so basic and monumental that the entirety of human existence revolves around it.

For most of my life, I thought the most important question was, “What is true?” After all, it seemed like the quest to understand the universe and how we have come to wake up in it was the highest, most noble goal of being alive. If someone was factually incorrect, it seemed my duty to drum up a logical argument and correct them for Truth’s sake. As recently as August of last year, I wrote a blog post titled “Truth,” in which I treated Truth with a capital T as if it were a god. But being skeptical in nature, I came to doubt that putting Truth at the center of my existence was, in fact, objectively correct. To my great surprise, I discovered that there is another, more fundamental, more profound question than what is true.

One of the observations that led me to this conclusion is that not all truth is equal. For instance, it never does you any good to know exactly how many atoms are in the paint on a particular stop sign. It is obvious that this type of fact is pointless, but I needed to know why. What makes some truths worth knowing, and others a waste of time?

We are here, existing with corporeal bodies on Planet Earth. We have internal drives that cause us to do things, but we also have a strange feature called a will, which lets us choose actions and courses that deviate from the path of least resistance. We can do things that are easy, or things that are hard. We can reach for pleasure or satisfaction, or to meet the needs and desires of others. We can set out to punish wrong, or to forgive. Thus, after the observation of self-existence, the very first question, which guides our lives from beginning to end, and which must be asked anew every waking moment, is “What should we do?”

In answering this, we find a momentary purpose. Some people go out and act on this purpose immediately, but those who are wise look open-mindedly for relevant facts, using the purpose as a guide. For the most part, the better informed we are about the facts relating to our purpose, the better we can fulfill this purpose. It may be that during our pursuit of relevant knowledge, we discover something that makes us reevaluate our purpose, and this new purpose may send us looking for other information, and the cycle continues. We might say that this is the course of intellectual maturity. Looking at this cycle, it is easy to see how one might get these questions, “What is True?” and “What should we do?” mixed up in their order of importance. It’s a chicken-and-egg scenario. Which came first? It’s hard to tell.

But it can be resolved by considering an asymmetry between the questions’ results. It is possible to have great and meaningful purpose while being completely wrong about the facts. Just compare people from different religions, who believe different sets of facts that contradict each other, but who have equally purposeful lives. On the flip side, however, things are different. It is completely possible to have deep and thorough knowledge about many things, problems that need solving, injustices that need correcting, and also have a clear understanding of the boundaries of one’s knowledge, and yet do nothing at all. While logically these amount to A and not B, and B and not A, there is no question that from a human perspective there is a world of difference between the two. It is infinitely more fulfilling to be with purpose than with knowledge, and fulfillment is what we spend every bit of energy striving toward.

I think the core of the argument between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson, the disagreement between the lines, is to what degree one must ground themselves in factual reality in order to have a maximally positive purpose-driven life. Sam’s position is that it is essential to have the facts straight, and the more factually correct you are, the nobler a purpose you find, and the better you will be able to successfully live it out. Jordan is more interested in what to do when the facts are beyond one’s reach or comprehension, or when doubting one’s current knowledge might lead to a loss of purpose. Both men have important things to say, and are well worth a respectful listen.

Where Secrets Lie – The Well of Images Part 2

Read Part 2: "Where Secrets Lie," at WritersCafe.org.

After months of hard work, I am pleased to announce "Where Secrets Lie," the second story in The Mentor, the Hero, and the Trickster, book 1 of The Well of Images.

Accepting Professor Berkeley's offer to take her on as a research assistant, Hope is dismayed when Berkeley forbids her from entering the Realms on her own, because of dangers unknown. Samuel, the only person who could be her delving partner, is completely disinterested. Can Hope find a way to convince him to join her, or will she have to brave the uncertain depths alone, behind her mentor's back?

When starting a new project, it can be easy to get wrapped up in beginner's enthusiasm. Getting through the first challenge is tough, but your excitement gets you through it. The hard part begins with the second challenge. You're already tired, and some of that enthusiasm is draining away. Worse, all of the parts you're most excited about don't happen until later, and you find yourself having to grind through the boring parts of the journey, while trying to make it look interesting enough to keep your readers' attention. With that in mind, getting "Where Secrets Lie" to a high enough quality level to share with the world is one of my most significant writing milestones. Here is to a successful future of the series.

The Well of Images is a fantasy series of short stories, following two college students in their adventures through the Unconscious Realms, full of symbolism and mythological archetypes. If you have not read part 1, or if you are from the future and want to read a later chapter, you can find them in the Finished Stories tab.

The Mentor, the Hero, and the Trickster:
1. Pandora’s Gate
2. Where Secrets Lie
3. Limits of the World
4. The Fool’s Gift
5. Loki’s Game

If you like "Where Secrets Lie," why not support me on Patreon? It means a lot to me to know that others find what I am passionate about to be meaningful.

Quantum Entanglement

Science has discovered a whole lot of cool and mysterious phenomena, some stranger than fiction. Today, we will dive into one of these, explaining it with accuracy, as well as the background knowledge that someone unfamiliar with it would need in order to understand. Today’s topic is quantum entanglement.

First, what is quantum physics? Put simply, it is the study of the very small. In a microscope, we can see things that are too small to see with our own eyes, like the cells that make up all living things. This is still far too big to be quantum. Zooming waaaaay in, we find organelles, chromosomes, DNA strands, proteins, and finally the basic building blocks of all matter: atoms. Now we have arrived at the level of quantum physics.

“Quantum” means the smallest possible amount. It does not mean consciousness, alternate histories, or time travel, so put those thoughts out of your mind. Quantum physics is the study of things that cannot be divided. For instance, an electron orbiting an atomic nucleus cannot have less than a certain amount of energy, called its ground state. Above that is the first excited state. To gain more energy, an electron must receive enough to make the difference between the ground state and the first excited state. After that, comes the second excited state, and so on. Think of it like climbing a ladder. If you want to get to the next rung, you have to lift your hand all the way up to it. If your hand isn’t high enough, it won’t be able to grab onto anything, and will fall back to where it was before.

Electrons have a little-known property called spin. They don’t actually rotate, because that doesn’t make sense, but they have a magnetic field as if they were rotating. If you measure an electron’s spin, you will either find it to be aligned with your measurement, spin up, or opposite your measurement, spin down. The details get complicated, but the important thing is that there are only two possible spins that an electron can have. Also, it is impossible for an electron to be without spin.

A quantum state is the way that a particle or system of particles is at any given time. An electron’s state includes its energy level, which atom it is a part of, or lack thereof, and its spin. Electrons are a type of particle called fermions, which means that two of them cannot have their total state be exactly the same at the same time. Looking at an atom again, there can only be two electrons in the ground state of energy, since there are only two possible spins. A third electron would have to go in the first excited state, and would not be able to get to the ground state.

There is one more important fact about quantum physics: a particle can be in two or more states at once. An electron can be 50% spin up and 50% spin down. This is called quantum superposition. To be clear, it is not halfway between spin up and spin down; it is both at the same time. If you measure something in quantum superposition, it becomes 100% one of its options, and we say it collapses. This means that if you measure an electron in a 50% spin up, 50% spin down state, it will collapse to be either 100% spin up or 100% spin down.

Think of it like these two sine waves. There cannot be two fermions with the same wave, but they can be antisymmetric like this.

Note: this does not mean consciousness creates reality. What exactly counts as a measurement is still debated, but there is no evidence that it has anything to do with consciousness. There is no counter-evidence either, but the burden of proof is on the person who wants to make the claim that there is a connection.

So if you have two electrons in an atom’s ground state, you would think that one has spin up and the other has spin down. But in reality, one is 50% spin up and 50% spin down, and the other is 50% spin down and 50% spin up. You might ask, how can this be? We just talked about how it is impossible for two electrons to be in the same total state. Well, unlike in everyday life, in quantum physics, order matters. Half-down-half-up is different from half-up-half-down—different in exactly the right was so that the two electrons occupy different total states.

If you take an electron away from its atom, its spin will still be in a superposition of up and down. This means that if you measure it, it will have a 50% chance of collapsing to spin up, and a 50% chance of collapsing to spin down. The same is true for the other electron, 50% for spin up, 50% for spin down. But here’s where the magic happens: When the two electrons are in the atom, they must be opposite from each other. If you take them out of the atom, they must still be opposite from each other. So if you measure one and it collapses to spin up, you immediately know the other one is going to be spin down. The thing is, it does not matter how far apart the electrons are. You could separate them by light years, and measuring one will collapse the spin state for both of them at once. This is quantum entanglement. It can happen for all kinds of particle combinations, and for many properties besides spin. A lot of neat stuff regarding it has been observed in labs, and there are even theoretical technologies based on it like quantum computers.

To reiterate, when two particles are entangled, measuring the entangled property of one will immediately determine what you will get when you measure the entangled property of the other, even if two people do the measuring at faraway places at the same time. Although it seems like instantaneous action faster than the speed of light, there is unfortunately no way to use entangled particles to communicate, so it does not break the speed of light barrier. After all, when you measure your particle, you have no idea if the one on the other end has been measured yet. Too bad for humanity’s galactic civilization 10 million years from now. But even if it doesn’t solve communication light-lag, quantum entanglement has plenty of other uses, and it’s quite a marvelous mystery of the universe.