BBC Documentary: Chaos & Life Origins

[CraigS]

For all those interested in extending their thinking about the possibilites of exo-life, beyond the usual explanations, but still wishing to stay within the realms of the standard 'pillars' of Mainstream Science, try this …

"The Secret Life of Chaos"

Channel: SBS One
Day: Tuesday 5th April (next Tuesday)
Time: 8:30 pm (1 hr)

Chaos theory has a bad name, conjuring up images of unpredictable weather, economic crashes and science gone wrong. But there is a fascinating and hidden side to Chaos, one that scientists are only now beginning to understand.
Professor Jim Al-Khalili sets out to uncover one of the great mysteries of science - how does a universe that starts off as dust end up with intelligent life?
How does order emerge from disorder? (From the UK) (Documentary)

I think I've seen snippets of this on Youtube and I think its definitely worthwhile.
I look forward to the program, and any follow up discussions .. hope other folks do too.

Cheers

[CraigS]

For anyone interested, the Youtubes of this BBC documentary, (in 10 minute segments), are at:

Part #1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HACkykFlIus
Part #2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHu8iaLs9i4&NR=1
Part #3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj--pxcFUjg&NR=1
Part #4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMbua0BGfFE&NR=1
Part #5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc0IYJm5-mE&NR=1
Part #6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1x-7ZLKhjw&NR=1

Interesting perspective.
Good introductory documentary on what it is all about.

Cheers

[Suzy]

Thanks for the heads up Craig.
This sounds so incredibly interesting, I can't wait!
Seems it's a series? When I pressed record on Foxtel, it told me there was a series link available, so I did.

[CraigS]

Yes Suzy.

For me, the concepts outlined in this documentary, lead to a far more satisfying line of thought than plain old Classical Physics, when it comes to contemplating the Universe and the origins of life.

Chaos is everywhere, and the patterns nature provides us with, (which we see around us everyday), are also present in our telescopes !

This show explains why.

Can you post the link ?
I'm interested to know if there's more episodes, as the guy who presents it (Professor Jim Al-Khalili), provides really great depth and enthusiasm. I've only ever seen him presenting once .. in this show.

Cheers

[Suzy]

According to Foxtel's on-line tv guide, the next episode on Tues 12th April at 8.30 is titled "The Story of Science" - What is out there?

I'm a little confused though. The show due to record on 5th April tells me a series link is available (which means it's part of a series), but the information provided on the show airing on 12th April (if you have a look right at the bottom) is saying it is episode 1. Perhaps this is part of a different series and Foxtel have confused it.

What is Out There?: In this six-part series, journalist Michael Mosley begins with the story of one of the great upheavals in human history: how we came to understand that our planet was not at the centre of everything in the cosmos.

Long synopsis: For thousands of years we have wrestled with the great questions of existence. The quest to answer these is the story of science. In this six-part series, journalist Michael Mosley traces the often unpredictable path we have taken. He begins with the story of one of the great upheavals in human history: how we came to understand that our planet was not at the centre of everything in the cosmos but just one of billions of bodies in a vast and expanding universe.

Series: 1
Episode: 1
Episode Title: What is Out There?

[CraigS]

So, I think: "The Story of Science" is a separate documentary series.
Series: 1 Episode #1 Title: "What is Out There?" is the first episode of a new series running from April 12th (it has nothing to do with the Chaos Documentary on April 5th).

The 'Chaos' doco is a 'one-off', 1 hour long show, and is on as follows:

"The Secret Life of Chaos"
Channel: SBS One
Day: Tuesday 5th April (next Tuesday)
Time: 8:30 pm (1 hr)

Cheers

[CraigS]

Heads up on this one .. its on tonight !

Cheers

[CraigS]

Great show.

The crucial 'take home' quotes for pondering:

i) Where the geese are flying in a flock (about 75% of the way through):

We know they’ll produce a kind of pattern, but we can’t predict the exact shapes.
The big question is: can nature’s ability to turn simplicity into complexity in this mysterious and unpredictable way, explain why life exists ?
Can it explain how a universe of simple dust, can turn into human beings ? How inanimate matter can spawn intelligence ? ….
If nature’s rules are unpredictable, should we give up ?
Absolutely not !

and then, right at the end:

ii) Inherently Unpredictable:

All the complexity of the universe, all its infinite richness, emerges from mindless, simple rules, repeated over and over again. But remember, powerful as though this process is, it is also inherently unpredictable. So, although I can confidently tell you that the future will be amazing, I can also say with scientific certainty, that I have no idea what it holds.

Deeply profound in the context of considering life elsewhere in the universe.

Inherently unpredictable … so we should consider this perspective before making statements like:

There are so many stars and thus planets out there, there must be other instances of life.

This is a prediction, and can be proven in modern complexity mathematics and science, to be completely invalid.

Tremendous stuff.

Thank you Alan Turing, Benoit Mandelbrot, Edward Lorenz and many others.
Giants in the field of Chaos and Complexity. We still can't even conceive of the true implications of what they uncovered for us all.

Cheers

[avandonk]

Craig there is a big difference between predicting morphology and the existence of life. In my humble opinion it is inevitable given the correct conditions. What exact form it would take is the totally unpredictable bit.

It is similar to confusing climate with weather. One is a long range trend in time. The other is local events that are entirely unpredictable long term.

Bert

[CraigS]

Fair enough Bert .. morpohology predictions and emergence are two different issues, perhaps separated by many numerous processes (perhaps chaotic, some fully deterministic, perhaps combinations of both), each having their own initial conditions.

The statement about unpredictability still stands.

I see that it is your opinion that life is inevitable. This is thus, the optimistic perspective, (which is fine with me).

Why is the unpredictability limited only to the morphology ?

I agree the scales are different, but unless we can bound the scales of each system, I assert that we cannot predict where (conditions), and when (in time), the next instance of similarity might occur.

Cheers

[GeoffW1 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Craig there is a big difference between predicting morphology and the existence of life. In my humble opinion it is inevitable given the correct conditions. What exact form it would take is the totally unpredictable bit.

Bert

Hi,

I agree with you. I am a fan of the Weak Anthropic Principle, which can be expressed as saying we should not be surprised that we are here. It is not that conditions fit us perfectly, but the other way about.

We already know there is enormous variety in the Universe, so, here and there, such conditions will occur. However the distance between such places would mostly be vast I believe. This would act as a natural quarantine (as far as we know now ).

This goes to address Fermi's Paradox ("where are all the aliens?"):

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3179183.htm

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by GeoffW1

We already know there is enormous variety in the Universe, so, here and there, such conditions will occur.

Hi Geoff;
However, we have no way to predict the prevalence or otherwise, of life emerging in those environments.

In fact, all we can say is that the emergence of life in those environments is 100% guaranteed to be uncertain.

The Anthropic Principle is a working assumption.

I am talking about mathematical certainty.

Cheers

[avandonk]

Our endless nice concise partial differential/integral or even elliptical integral equations did not come close to decribing any complexity.

Is this what you call mathematical certainty. A pristine sterilized world of certainty?

Get over it you are nearly there. There is no such thing as prediction or certainty long term.

Every action you take in your tiny allocated slice of time is down to you!

The huge river of life will flow with or without you.

Bert

[CraigS]

I'll take that as whole-hearted agreement !

Very cool.

Cheers

[GeoffW1 (Geoff)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Hi Geoff;
However, we have no way to predict the prevalence or otherwise, of life emerging in those environments.

In fact, all we can say is that the emergence of life in those environments is 100% guaranteed to be uncertain.

The Anthropic Principle is a working assumption.

I am talking about mathematical certainty.

Cheers

Hi,

I'd say more that the Weak Anthropic Principle is a philosophic view, or at least it is for me. I don't so much like the Strong Anthropic Principle.

As for the rest of it, I do agree with you, we can't posit any range of values for the prevalence of life elsewhere, we have nowhere near enough data.

By the way, I was commenting on Bert's thoughts mainly

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by GeoffW1

Hi,

I'd say more that the Weak Anthropic Principle is a philosophic view, or at least it is for me. I don't so much like the Strong Anthropic Principle.

As for the rest of it, I do agree with you, we can't posit any range of values for the prevalence of life elsewhere, we have nowhere near enough data.

By the way, I was commenting on Bert's thoughts mainly

Cheers

That's Ok, Geoff. Thanks for you comment. Much appreciated.

The next time I see something which implies that life must be out there because of the scale of the universe (eg: the numbers of exo-planet candidates, or numbers of confirmed exo-planets in the 'Habitable Zone'), I'll personally be thinking .. 'this doesn't tell me anything!' .. but what I know for sure, is that the possibility of exo-life on those planets is still unpredicatable with mathematical certainty! .. Hilarious, eh ?)

Cheers

[GeoffW1 (Geoff)]

Hi,

Adding a bit more, by nature and training I like a stochastic (or fuzzily probabilistic) approach to things. It makes me feel comfortable.

By that I mean discussions which say "such and such might occur", or "we think it will occur", all of which to me is generally probabilistic in nature.

This is what I think of when I suggest we cannot put any range of values on life's prevalence in the Universe, other than Life = 1.0. It is probably ( there we go) reasonable to say Life => 1.0, but further than than I would not go.

Now, in an area where I am utterly ignorant, any linkage between this and Chaos Theory might ( again) show that we could be part of a Mandelbrot Set kind of thing, where possibilities are bounded by observable conditions.

In other words, if we knew the boundary conditions for life in the Universe locally, on a larger scale than, say, our part of the Galaxy, then we might be able to do better at modelling it for the Universe. I don't know much there though.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by GeoffW1

Now, in an area where I am utterly ignorant, any linkage between this and Chaos Theory might ( again) show that we could be part of a Mandelbrot Set kind of thing, where possibilities are bounded by observable conditions.

In other words, if we knew the boundary conditions for life in the Universe locally, on a larger scale than, say, our part of the Galaxy, then we might be able to do better at modelling it for the Universe. I don't know much there though.

We have no idea of what the boundary conditions are, or where they are, or on what scales they may exist. They may be tiny, or they could be huge.

The self-similar system from which life emerged, could quite well be defined by the infinite, (ie: unbounded), boundaries of the universe. This would mean that the universe needs to be as big as it is, for one life pattern to emerge, or for many multiple instances of life patterns to emerge. We just don't know.

Chaos theory and fractal geometry doesn't really help us in this respect.

The only scientifically, (or statistically), supportable statement is that the possibility of life emerging elsewhere, is entirely unpredictable. (So no statistics, or probability justifications hold anything of value, veracity and hence, meaning).

Cheers