Spontaneous Life Creation vs. Guessing a BTC Address \ stacker news ~bitcoin

Spontaneous Life Creation vs. Guessing a BTC Address

1666 sats \ 31 comments \ @MathiuJ 29 Jul 2023 bitcoin

Statistically, it should take 10^130 (20^100) random interaction trials before inorganic matter creates a viable protein chain that could spawn life regardless of the chemical reaction conditions. (Source: https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/in-six-days/john-r-baumgardner-geophysics/)

There is 10^48 (2^160 combinations for Base58 address format) chance of getting a specific bitcoin address. (Source: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8804/is-each-bitcoin-address-unique/12740#12740)

10^130 / 10^48 = 10^82, which conveniently is the estimated number of atoms in the known universe. (Source: https://www.universetoday.com/36302/atoms-in-the-universe/)

My Interpretation: I would have to multiply the incredibly small chances of guessing an individual bitcoin by the number of atoms in the universe to get the probability that life developed from non-living material. So, even though I think most folks agree on stacker.news that it is statistically impossible for your individual bitcoin address to be guessed randomly, it is much, MUCH more statistically unlikely that life developed randomly in the universe.

What implications should I take from this? That life is more likely to have come from intelligent design (either aliens, God, or we are all in some big simulator)? Or, did I just dork up the math and this calculation is wrong? Alternatively, am I just approaching this from a foolish perspective and need to think about this in another way? Perhaps I am referencing non-credible sources? I welcome your guidance/discussion/correction.

view all related items

51 sats \ 3 replies \ @jgbtc 30 Jul 2023

Apparently the chance of inorganic matter forming life in this universe is 100% considering we are here right now discussing it.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @SantaNotSanta 31 Jul 2023

lol, so if you win a coin flip, the odds of winning were 100%?

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @jgbtc 31 Jul 2023

Depends on the coin. For example if it's heads on both sides then yes.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SantaNotSanta 31 Jul 2023

that coin sounds like a shitcoin

130 sats \ 0 replies \ @random_bitcoiner 30 Jul 2023

I don't know the details of how that 10^130 number comes from, but just the fact that the domain you linked as the source has "answers in genesis" in it makes me highly suspicious and less likely to even want to waste time trying to debunk it.

Question your starting assumptions.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @SpaceHodler 30 Jul 2023

Intelligent life is very improbable, but the probability that a universe that has creatures asking this kind of questions has intelligent life in it is 1.

The are countless universes where intelligent life evolved, invented Bitcoin and some dude guessed 10 random strings and they all turned out to be someone's Bitcoin private keys. But the probability that ours is that is close to 0.

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @maths 30 Jul 2023

The Miller-Urey experiment was a groundbreaking study conducted by chemists Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey in 1952. It was one of the first experiments to investigate the possibility of organic compounds important to life spontaneously forming from inorganic precursors under conditions thought to resemble those of the early Earth.

In the experiment, Miller and Urey simulated a primitive Earth atmosphere by using a mixture of gases: methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). They chose these gases based on the scientific understanding of Earth's early atmosphere at the time.

This mixture was put into a closed system with two connected flasks. One flask was heated to simulate the Earth's ocean, causing water to evaporate. The other flask had electrodes to simulate lightning. The water vapor mixed with the gases, and then sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning storms thought to be common on the early Earth.

After running the experiment for a week, Miller and Urey found that several organic compounds had formed in the mixture, most notably including amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, which are critical for life. This demonstrated that simple organic compounds could be made from inorganic precursors under conditions hypothesized to have been present on the early Earth.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullama 30 Jul 2023

The thing is that at large scales, even extremely improbable things end up happening quite often.

13.8 billion years is a long time.

10 sats \ 2 replies \ @OriginalSize 30 Jul 2023

If you're interested in origin of life don't use a decades old story. Nick Lane explains the state of the art here

101 sats \ 1 reply \ @MathiuJ OP 30 Jul 2023

Fascinating podcast, thank you for the recommendation. I really appreciate the non-sensational, thoughtful demeanor of Lex Fridman. As an interviewer, he reminds me of a younger version of Peter Robinson--he wrote Reagan's famous "Tear down this wall" speech--from the Hoover Institute's "Uncommon Knowledge" podcast (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKruweaZqDNd6nLsrSJE7G-MxcbUjcvQr). It's rare to find an interviewer who actively & patiently listens to their guest and engages in a constructive dialogue instead of a series of gotcha-questions. Cheers friend.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @SantaNotSanta 31 Jul 2023

same podcast on fountain: https://fountain.fm/episode/5YBYxoQ0wyY2BXQSlQ80

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 30 Jul 2023

It seems like you left out the trillions of years worth of interactions that happened pre-Bitcoin. That's a pretty big head start:

10^13 years * 10^2 days per year * 10^1 hours per day * 10^3 seconds per hour * 10^43 units of Planck time per second

is over 10^60 time units for those 10^82 atoms to work with.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @l0k18 30 Jul 2023

I think the new NASA telescope sorta puts an end to that old estimate of 10e48 for the number of atoms in the universe, pretty sure Hubble saw nothing where the first photo came from. It's probably wrong by at least a factor of a square of what it was before (10e48*10e48=10e96).

Yes, still far more likely to crack a key, than make life accidentally.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @BBitcoinUSA 30 Jul 2023

Unless the “experts” have confirmed that the universe is finite and does not extend forever (which would logically mean there is some boundary or “outer wall” surrounding it) then there must be an infinite number of atoms in the universe.

However if there were an “outer wall” surrounding the universe, then logically speaking there would have to be either 1) something, or 2) nothingness, on the other side of that wall. Since “nothingness” is the same thing as “more outer space”, that means the universe must extend infinitely, which then means there is an infinite amount of space in which additional matter may or may not exist, which then means it’d be impossible to quantify the number of atoms in existence...?

Very tough math problem imho,

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DiracDelta 30 Jul 2023

Lol, no, not how that works

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @quark 30 Jul 2023

Underestimate the size of the Universe. Somewhere in the Universe there is a planet exactly like Earth and where there is a random guy that have just guessed your bitcoin key all by chance.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @WeAreAllSatoshi 29 Jul 2023

Isn’t it more important to compare the likelihood of guessing my seed phrase than my address? Does knowing an address do anything?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @MathiuJ OP 30 Jul 2023

For a 12 word/128 bit BIP-39 seed phase, it will be 10^38 possible seed phrases, and for a 24 word/256 bit seed phrase, it would be 10^77 possible seed phrases; both ridiculously large numbers, but both still tiny when compared to 10^130.

Sources: 1 - https://foundationdevices.com/2023/06/make-12-words-the-standard/ 2 - https://onlinetools.com/number/convert-number-to-power-of-ten 3 - https://bard.google.com/ (to check my math conversions)

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @CruncherDefi 31 Jul 2023 freebie

I would have to multiply the incredibly small chances of guessing an individual bitcoin by the number of atoms in the universe to get the probability that life developed from non-living material.

You ignored the 'multiple trial part'. Single-trial probability for life is small, but there were multiple independent trials being in run in many places in parallel. And it needs to success only ~once for the whole 'life starts event' to kickoff.

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @dixovi9178 30 Jul 2023 freebie

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

50 sats \ 9 replies \ @AJ1992 29 Jul 2023

Oh my god I can't stand this argument because you guys think the chance of there being some almighty, all-knowing ghost in the sky is more probable than the chance of intelligent life on earth developing the way it has been proven it did.

You guys are clowns.

I can show you proof of evolution.

Show me proof of this 'god.'

1020 sats \ 0 replies \ @l0k18 30 Jul 2023

Show me proof of the existence of the number Pi.

Oh, it's irrational! You can't write it down, even if you have a million years and can type at 400cpm.

Am I splitting hairs here? Trying to break down something atomic?

Anthropomorphising principles is childs' play. Understanding what infinity means precludes such naive models.

People do confuse things though. Most people talk about something that is more like the ideal of humanity, as being God. If that's what made the universe, then it makes no sense. Plenty of evidence of what seems like disinterested impartiality, that invalidates the model of a man-like thing being the source of reality, even the "ideal".

Science fans are all following the atheist and materialist models popularised by media, but real scientists who actually understand the deep math that is visible already just from our primitve tools believes in some kind of intelligent origin to the universe because of it's incredible elegance and the simple, yet combinatorially impossible to calculate nature of everything.

Since you are a materialist, explain to me what a "principle" is, and where to go grasp hold of one.

Yes, let's start with this principle called "empiricism". This supposed evidence. What if it's entirely intangible, a mere concept, a pattern of cause and effect?

13 sats \ 6 replies \ @garyKrause_ 29 Jul 2023

I find it interesting that most believers in Christ usually didn't flinch when I used to proudly proclaim my Atheism. Conversely, atheist seem way more triggered by appeals to Faith. 🫂

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @AJ1992 30 Jul 2023

I've gotten cussed out, physically assaulted, discriminated against, and have lost out on a job because of my atheism. These so called christ followers, at least a good majority of them, act in a way completely opposite of the way Christ would. They forget that Christ, if he existed, was a brown skinned refugee/immigrant that hung out with sinners on a daily basis and preached socialist ideals.

I will say though I know a few Christ followers that actually do follow and try their best to act as Christ did and show nothing but love on a daily basis.. And to be honest, these individuals vote straight Democrat as well because they understand that Jesus/God/the bible was clear on giving the people free will.

I get triggered because I am sick and tired of the blatant hypocrisy from those who claim to be followers of christ and am sick of most of them trying to justify their bigotry, homophobia, and flat out hatred towards anyone who isn't like them by using their bibles. I am sick of them trying to deny individuals the rights they are constitutionally guaranteed by legislating based on their bible. Which is also unconstitutional and is no different than Sharia law. Just another example of hypocrisy. I am also sick of them not getting vaccinated by saying their god will protect them but going out and stocking up on guns made for a battlefield so they can protect themselves. Which one is it? God gonna protect you or not?

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @l0k18 30 Jul 2023

When it comes down to it, it's all just like Marx says, a way to pacify yourself. But, let's face it, there's way too many things to balance up for our little greasy grey biocomputing systems (and their IO, aka the body).

Maybe what you are missing is that you don't have to reason about why you should not be afraid, but rather, confident that when you must, you will find the solution because your eyes are clear.

In which case arguing about how to describe it is kinda stupid. From both sides.

100 sats \ 3 replies \ @garyKrause_ 30 Jul 2023

I hope you find peace.

100 sats \ 2 replies \ @AJ1992 30 Jul 2023

Really? That's all you can say? Seems to me you have no constructive retort to my arguments and my experience and my opinions. Aren't you as a Christian supposed to stand up to those that challenge your faith and you become stronger in your faith by being challenged?

1337 sats \ 1 reply \ @garyKrause_ 30 Jul 2023

I will zap you every sat that my previous reply gets zapped.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @AJ1992 30 Jul 2023

I want the 1337 sats this reply got too..and that's not a request ::pulls out pistol::

lolll

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @nullama 30 Jul 2023

There's no evidence of god, but there's no need for it really.

The whole point of religions in general is to serve as a guide to live a good life.

The idea of heaven and hell is basically a good or a bad life, here on earth right now, in your future, not after you die.

So, basically, if you make sacrifices in the present, you have more chances to get a better life in the future (heaven). Alternatively, if you only live in the present, you will probably end up with a worse life in the future (hell).

That's pretty much it, it's a practical thing, the wording of it basically has to be "never-reachable" because you can never reach perfection, and that's basically god, but there's no need for any of that to exist.