Header 1

Our future, our universe, and other weighty topics


Thursday, December 23, 2021

A Little-Known Classic of Parapsychology

People who make serious study of the paranormal tend to be well aware of certain classic volumes of parapsychology, such as the often-mentioned works below:

Conversely, the 576-page work Man and His Relations by Samuel Byron Brittan MD is almost never cited, although it seems to be in the same class as most of the often-mentioned books above.  Maybe the work failed to get the attention it deserved because it lacked an intriguing memorable title such as The Night Side of Nature or Death and Its Mystery. It sure didn't help that the book's full title was the way-too-long and boring-sounding title "Man and his relations : illustrating the influence of the mind on the body : the relations of the faculties to the organs, and to the elements, objects and phenomena of the external world." From that dull-sounding title, you would never guess that the chapters are rich with fascinating material. Let's take a took at some of the book's very interesting contents, which discuss very many topics in psychology and parapsychology. 

Samuel Byron Brittan MD

After dozens of pages of well-written but not-very-interesting prose, we have on page 67 the first very interesting account of the book:

"Mr.  Charles  Lawrence,  with  whom  the  writer  was  for  several  years  on  familiar  terms,  possessed  a remarkable  voluntary power  over  sensation  and  vital  motion.  He  could  so  paralyze the  censor  nerves  that  his  skin  might  be  punctured without  causing  pain,  and  a violent  blow  did  not  occasion the  least  suffering.  By  the  power  of  his  volition  he  could immediately  accelerate  the  pulsation  in  a surprising  degree  ; and  he  could  also  entirely  suspend  the  heart’s  action  in  three minutes ! These  effects  were  repeatedly  produced  in  the presence  of  the  writer,  before  public  asssemblies,  and  to the  satisfaction  of  several  committees  composed  of  members of  the  medical  profession."

The author mentions Eastern holy men with similar abilities, and modern reports corroborate such claims.  In 2021 the Daily Mail reported the following:

"Russian scientists are actively studying Tibetan monks in the hopes of garnering tips for astronauts on future long-distance space missions. Experts from Moscow State University are examining ancient techniques for putting the human body into a 'semi-lethargic state' - 'suspended animation', before returning to normal weeks later."

A similar anomaly involves mysterious cases of Buddhist monks whose bodies seem to not decay for a very long time after death.  At the mainstream materialist site www.bigthink.com, we read this: "After the apparent death of some monks, their bodies remain in a meditating position without decaying for an extraordinary length of time, often as long as two or three weeks."

Most of the first two hundred pages of the book aren't very interesting.  On page 197 there begins a discussion of psychometry. We read on page 202 this remarkable claim: "The  capacity  of  certain  impressible  persons  to  perceive,  by an  exquisite  power  of  cognition,  or  semi-spiritual  sensation, the  general  and  particular  characteristics  of  distant  and  unknown  persons,  by  merely  holding  their  autographs  in  the hand,  or  against  the  forehead,  has  been  demonstrated  to  the satisfaction  of  numerous  experimental  observers."  On page 204 we read this similar claim, mentioning the "animal magnetism" experiments that are now called hypnotism: "The early  experimenters  in  Animal  Magnetism  did  not  fail  to observe  that  persons  of  acute  sensibility  were  enabled  to establish  a sympathetic  rapport  with  others  at  a distance,  by holding  a lock  of  hair,  an  article  of  clothing,  or  a finger-ring which  the  absent  party  had  worn  ; or,  indeed,  by  taking  in the  hand  any  small  article  of  personal  property  that  had been  in  contact  with  the  body." 

The claims may seem outrageous, but it matches what was reported at great length by a nineteenth century physician (Joseph R. Buchanan) and also an early twentieth century investigator (Osty), as reported here. Even in recent decades similar things may be reported, as we read below:

"In 1991, when her daughter’s rare, hand-carved harp was stolen, Lisby Mayer’s familiar world of science and rational thinking turned upside down. After the police failed to turn up any leads, a friend suggested she call a dowser—a man who specialized in finding lost objects. With nothing to lose—and almost as a joke—Dr. Mayer agreed. Within two days, and without leaving his Arkansas home, the dowser located the exact California street coordinates where the harp was found."

This was before the Internet was widely available. The account above matches what Brittan states on pages 204-205:

"Crimes  and  criminals were  occasionally  discovered  in  this  way.  The  smallest fragment  of  a cravat,  worn  by  a thief,  would  hold  him  fast ; a shirt  was  a better  means  of  detection  than  a sheriff  ; and an  old  shoe  would  suffice  to  put  the  sensitive  explorer  on  the track  of  those  who  were  either  concealed,  absent  or  lost. When  the  search  resulted  in  finding  the  object,  not  only physical  conditions  and  specific  localities  could  be  described, and  pointed  out,  but  the  memory  became  an  open  book,  that could  be  read  in  the  darkness  of  midnight  ; the  unspoken thoughts  of  men  were  mysteriously  revealed  ; and  the  most secret  purposes  were  disclosed  before  time  had  afforded  an opportunity  for  their  actual  accomplishment."

On page 207 Brittan gives us some very specific examples to back up such claims. Referring to Semantha Mettler, whose first decades are documented in the biography here, Brittan states the following: 

"While  Mrs. Mettler  was  holding  a sealed  letter  from  Dr.  Buchanan — who  was  at  that  time  editing  the  Journal  of  Man — she declared  that  the  chief  study  of  the  writer  was  ‘Man,  in  his whole  nature.'  When  an  envelope  enclosing  some  [poetry] stanzas written  by  a convict,  was  placed  in  her  hand,  she  observed, that  the  author  had  a double  character — the  sphere  was unpleasant,  but  that  the  person  could  'write  poetry  tolerably well.'  A letter  written  by  Kossuth,  immediately  after  the delivery  of  a powerful  speech  in  St.  Louis,  caused  her  to  gesticulate as  if  she  were  addressing  a multitude,  and  this  was folloved  by  a feeling  of  extreme  exhaustion.  The  letter  of an  insane  man,  who  had  killed  his  own  child,  occasioned sympathetic  delirium  and  convulsions.  Some  irregular pencil  lines  and  scratches,  traced  by  the  hand  of  an  infant child  gave  no impression.  A very  delicate  picture  on  silk — painted  by  Miss  Thomas,  of  Edwardsburg,  Mich.,  and  presented to  the  writer — was  handed  to  Mrs.  M.,  under  the cover  of  a sealed  envelope,  whereupon  she  affirmed  that  the author  of  the  contents  of  the  envelope  had  painted  her  idea, instead  of  expressing  it  in  words."

On page 252 we read of the astonishing success that Dr. James Esdaile had in India in performing dramatic surgeries in patients who were given no anesthesia but had only been hypnotized to a state of deep trance:

"He  found  the  natives  of  Bengal  extremely  impressible, and  a few  trials,  by  himself  or  his  assistants, generally  subdued  their  natural  powers  of  resistance,  leaving them  in  a state  of  profound  coma,  and  insensible  of  pain.  In the  short  period  of  eight  months  he  performed,  at  Hoogly, no  less  than  seventy-three  painless  operations  in  surgery,  embracing among  others  the  dissection  and  amputation  of  different members  of  the  body,  operations  for  scrotocele  and hydrocele,  removal  of  scrotal  and  other  tumors,  actual and  potential  cauteries,  etc.,  etc.  In  these  operations  the subjects  were  entirely  deprived  of  physical  sensation  ; with rare  exceptions,  they  were  altogether  unconscious,  and  often expressed  the  greatest  surprise  on  learning  what  had  been done  to  them  during  the  interval  of  oblivious  repose."

On pages 286-287 Brittan discusses successful ESP experiments he did with various subjects. In one a subject was able to instantly identify flowers shown on a dozen or more cards Brittan was looking at but the subject could not see. In another a subject was able to identify tastes Brittan was experiencing. 

On page 287 he describes astonishing success doing experiments with a Mrs. Rice, one involving a "traveling clairvoyance" very widely reported in nineteenth century literature:

"Mrs.  Rice,  of  Worcester,  Mass.,  was  distinguished  for  a most  delicate  susceptibility  of  mental  impressions.  Having been  invited  to  visit  her  one  afternoon — at  her  residence,   and  in  company  with  several  friends — I seated  myself  at  her side,  at  the  same  time  requesting  her  to  take  an  excursion,   and  to  describe  whatever  she  might  observe  by  the  way. Without  giving  the  slightest  intimation  respecting  the  direction we  were  to  travel,  I proceeded  on  an  ideal  [mental] journey,  by  railroad  and  steamboat,  to  New  York.  Madam  Rice described  with  singular  fidelity  all  the  important  objects  on  the  route  of  which  the  writer  could  form  a distinct  conception— spoke  of  persons  whom  she  met  by  the  way,  and  repeated  the  very  words  they  were  by  me  supposed  to  utter. On  the  same  occasion,  I imagined  a letter  to  be  placed  before her,  when  she  suddenly  exclaimed,  “ Here  is  a letter from  Mr. -----' mentioning  the  name  of  an  absent  friend  of whom  I was  thinking  at  that  moment ; and  going  through with  the  appropriate  motions,  as  if  she  were  really  breaking a seal  and  unfolding  the  sheet,  she  commenced  and  read  verbatim, from  my  mind,  for  several  minutes.  These  were  the first  and  only  experiments  made  with  Mrs.  Rice."

On page 288 Brittan describes a telepathy experiment with a Mrs. Mills of Albany:

"This  gentleman  having  expressed  a desire  to  witness  the experiment,  it  was  agreed  that  I should  cause  the  lady  to  leave  her  place  at  the  opposite  side  of  the  room,  and  occupy a vacant  chair  by  his  side.  In  less  than  one  minute  she obeyed  the  silent  action  of  my  will  and  seated  herself  in  the unoccupied  chair.  In  like  manner  she  was  impelled  to change  her  position  several  times,  and  finally  to  leave  the room  temporarily,  with  no  specific  object  in  view,  and  without  so  much  as  suspecting  the  origin  of  an  impulse  she  was  quite  unable  to  resist."

Later we read of a similar ESP experiment:

"Miss.  A.  promptly  obeyed  the  silent  mandate of  my  mind,  and  going  to  the  center-table,  selected  a particular  book,  that  had  been  singled  out  from  among  a number  of  others  equally  conspicuous.  Some  one  required that  she  might  be  incited  to  take  up  another  book,  of  five hundred  pages,  and  turn  to  a short  poem — somewhere  about the  middle  of  the  volume — which  was  accordingly  done  without the  least  hesitation.  Again,  by  a similar  effort,  this  lady was  influenced  to  make  choice  of  a particular  engraving, from  amongst  a number  contained  in  an  annual."

On page 290 Brittan reports a dramatic case of ESP in which a distant person was apparently telepathically summoned:   

"On  one  occasion,  while  spending  a few  days  at  Waterbury,  Conn.,  I found  it  necessary  to  see  a young  man  in  the  village.  The  immediate  presence  of  the youth  was  of  considerable  importance  to  me,  but  not  knowing his  residence,  place  of  business,  or  even  his  name,  I could not  send  for  him.  In  this  emergency,  I undertook  to  [mentally] telegraph him,  by  concentrating  my  mind  on  the  young  man,  with a fixed  determination  to  bring  him  to  me.  Some  ten  minutes had  elapsed  when  he  came  to  the  house  and  inquired  for  the writer.  Meeting  a gentleman  at  the  door,  he  asked,  with much  apparent  interest,  whether  1 wanted  to  see  him.  On being  interrogated  by  this  individual,  he  stated  that  a few moments  before,  and  while  actively  engaged  in  his  workshop — distant  one  fourth  of  a mile — he  suddenly  felt  that  he  must seek  my  presence  without  delay." 

On page 335 we have this account of information apparently acquired in a dream:

"Some  years  since  the  Highland  Eagle  of  Westchester County,  New  York,  published  the  fact  that  Mr.  Dykeman, Deputy  Sheriff  of  Putnam  County,  had  made  a singular  discovery in  a dream.  It  was  stated  that  George  F.  Sherman, of  Cold  Spring,  had  lost  his  pocket-book,  containing  three hundred  and  seventy-two  dollars.  On  the  night  following the  Deputy  Sheriff  dreamed  that  a clerk  by  the  name  of McNary  had  the  money.  Unable  to  resist  the  suspicion excited  in  his  mind,  Mr.  Dykeman  arrested  McNary,  who thereupon  made  a confession,  and  restored  over  three  hundred dollars  of  the  money,  which  he  had  concealed  in  places indicated  in  the  dream."

On page 362 we have some fascinating accounts of people who performed very complex tasks while sleepwalking:

 "Dr.  Gall  gives  an  account of  a miller  who  was  in  the  habit  of  rising  every  night and  running  his  mill.  Mertinet  mentions  the  case  of  a saddler who  worked  at  his  trade  when  sleeping; and  Dr.  Prichard that  of  a farmer  who  got  out  of  bed,  dressed  himself, saddled  his  horse,  and  rode  to  market  while  asleep.  Professor Soave  reports  the  case  of  an  Apothecary’s  clerk  who not  only  walked  while  asleep,  but  would  kindle  his  fire  ; pursue  his  studies,  examining  authorities,  classify  botanical specimens  ; engage  in  animated  controversies — with  his  employer or  Professor  Soave — on  Chemistry  and  other  scientific themes  ; and,  indeed,  perform  any  duty  or  service  that he  was  accustomed  to  do  in  his  waking  hours.  He  would carefully  compound  medicines,  according  to  the  prescriptions that  were  before  him,  but  conscientiously  declined  filling false  prescriptions,  or  such  as  would  be  likely  to  injure  the patient.  Mrs.  Newton,  a relative  of  the  writer,  was  a skillful  seamstress  and  was  accustomed  to  the  unconscious use  of  her  needle  for  hours at  night,  when  there  was  no light  in  her  room.  A friend, who  was  an  accomplished horseman,  often  rode  many  miles  while  he  was  in  a profound slumber  ; and  it  is  a still  more  remarkable  fact — but  well authenticated — that  in  the  disastrous  retreat  of  Sir  John Moore,  before  the  battle  of  Corunna,  many  of  the  soldiers fell  asleep,  yet  continued  to  march  with  their  comrades."

On page 389 we hear this account of the legendary scientist and clairvoyant Immanuel Swedenborg:

"It  is  alleged  by  M.  Dieudonne  Thiebault,  Professor  of  Belles Letters  in  the  Royal  Academy  of  Berlin,  that  the  Count  de Montville,  Ambassador  from  Holland  to  Stockholm,  having died  suddenly,  a shopkeeper  demanded  of  his  widow  the  payment of  a bill,  which  she  remembered  had  been  paid  in  her husband’s  lifetime.  Not  being  able  to  find  the  shopkeeper’s receipt,  she  was  induced  to  consult  the  distinguished  Seer, though  she  did  so  less  from  credulity  than  curiosity.  Swedenborg informed  her  that  her  deceased  husband  had  taken the  shopkeeper’s  receipt  on  a certain  day  (also  naming  the hour),  while  he  was  reading  such  an  article  in  Bayle’s  Dictionary, in  his  cabinet  ; and  that  his  attention  being  called immediately  to  some  other  concern,  he  put  the  receipt  into the  book  to  mark  the  place  at  which  he  left  off ; where,  in fact,  it  was  found  at  the  page  described!" 

The next page tells another account about Swedenborg that was well authenticated:

"When  Swedenborg  was  in  Gottenburg,  three  hundred miles  from  Stockholm,  he  announced  the  occurrence  of  a great  fire  in  his  native  city,  giving  the  facts  respecting  the time,  place,  and  circumstances  of  its  origin,  and  accurately describing  its  progress  and  termination.  It  was  on  Saturday night  that  this  conflagration  was  described  as  occurring  at that  time.  The Seer  repeated  the  substance  of  his  statement to  the  Governor  on  Sunday  morning.  This  was  substantially confirmed  by  a dispatch,  received  from  Gottenburg on  Monday  evening,  and  on  Tuesday  morning  the  arrival of  the  royal  courier  furnished  an  unqualified  attestation of  the  truth  of  all  the  particulars  of  the  clairvoyant revelation.  These  facts  rest  on  no  doubtful  authority.  Their authenticity  is  sanctioned  by  Kant,  the  great  German  metaphysician, in  whose  judgment— to  use  his  own  words — they 'set  the  assertion  of  the  extraordinary  gift  of  Swedenborg out  of  all  possibility  of  doubt.' "

Kant's original account of the incident above can be read here. 

The book gives many other accounts of clairvoyance, including the well-documented case of Alexis Didier, which I won't repeat since I already described it here.  We then read of a case I had not previously heard of:

"Mrs.  Semantha  Mettler,  of  Hartford,  Conn.,  has  long  exercised her  clairvoyant  powers  in  discovering  the  immediate and  remote  causes  of  disease,  its  organic  relations — noting, at  any  distance,  its  essential  character  and  its  phenomenal aspects  - and  in  selecting  from  the  great  pharmacopeia  of Nature  the  appropriate  remedies  for  her  patients.  During a period  of  fifteen  years  she  has  been  constantly  before  the public,  in  a professional  capacity,  and  her  diagnoses — made in  the  course  of  her  daily  transfigurations—  amount  to  more than  40,000  in  number.  In  numerous  instances  the  representatives  of  accredited  science  have  been  put  to  shame  by Mrs.  Mettler’s  disclosures  respecting  the  original  cause,  the particular  seat,  the  precise  nature,  and  the  ultimate  result  of a disease,  when  these  were  previously  all  unknown  by  the afflicted  parties,  and  not  to  be  detected  by  ordinary  professional sagacity."

The case of Semantha Mettler (comparable to that of Edgar Cayce) was so remarkable that she inspired an 1853 biography that detailed her rise from abject poverty and extreme bad luck to an apparent wonder worker.  Brittan's work dates from 1865, so apparently that 1853 biography detailed only part of Mettler's success.  The Brittan work gives this example:

"The  writer  could  easily  fill  a volume  of  facts  illustrative of  the  Clairvoyance  of  Mrs.  Mettler,  but  a brief  digest  of  a few  well-authenticated  facts  must  suffice  in  this  connection. Mrs.  William  B.  Hodget,  of  Springfield,  Mass.,  had  extreme pain  and  inflammation  in  one  of  her  limbs.  Mrs.  M.  made an  examination  at  the  distance  of  twenty-four  miles,  and  discovered a  fine  cambric  needle  concealed  in  the  flesh.  This staggered  the  faith  of  Mr.  Hodget,  and  the  family  Physician was  equally  skeptical  on  the  point  of  the  needle  ; but,  to remove  all  doubts,  he  applied  his  lancet,  when  the  needle was  discovered  and  removed."

Brittan recounts a case of a man who was shot in the pocket, and who did not recover from his wound.  We read this:

"On  my  return  from  the  West I took  an  early  opportunity  to  submit  this  distressing  case to  the  clairvoyant  inspection  of  Mrs.  Mettler,  merely  telling her  that  she  was  requested  to  examine  a young  man  who  had been  shot.  There  was  no  intimation  respecting  the  circumstances attending  the  accident,  the  seat,  or  the  extent  of  the injury  ; nor  was  the  existing  condition  of  the  young  man  in any  way  implied  or  referred  to.  In  the  course  of  the  investigation and  diagnosis — conducted  at  Hartford,  while  the patient  was  in  Central  Michigan  — Mrs.  M.  discovered  a piece  of  copper  in  the  limb,  and  observed  that  the  wound would  not  heal  until  it  was  removed.  But  young  Barker was  sure  that  he  had  no  copper  in  his  pocket  at  the  time  of the  accident  ; and,  inasmuch  as  the  medical  attendant  had made  no  such  discovery,  it  was  presumed  that  the  Seeress was  mistaken.  But  some  time  after  the  foreign  substance described  became  visible,  when  Mr.  Barker’s  mother — with a pair  of  embroidery  scissors — removed  a penny  from  the wound  ! In  such  a case  science  is  a stupid,  sightless  guide, and  must  stand  out  of  the  way.  The  doctors  in  Michigan could  not  see  that  penny  when  it  was  within  their  reach, and  their  eyes  were  wide  open  ; but  this  Seeress  discovered it  at  a distance  of  nearly  1,000  miles  with  her  eyes  closed !"

Call it a case of telemedicine before there was what we now call telemedicine. The next pages of the book give us equally impressive accounts involving the same Mrs. Mettler. 

On page 427 the author tells us that he personally witnessed an astonishing case of accurate prophecy:

"The  writer  and  several  other  persons  were  witnesses  of a prophetic  announcement  of  the  destruction  of  the  steamer Henry  Clay,  on  the  Hudson  River,  made  by  Mrs.  Harriet Porter,  at  Bridgeport,  Connecticut,  on  the  27th  day  of  July, 1852 — the  day  before  that  boat  was  actually  burned.  On the  28th,  at  about  tbe  hour  of  three  o’clock,  p.  m.,  Miss. Porter — being  entranced  in  presence  of  several  persons — again  referred  to  the  subject,  and  proceeded  to  describe  the terrible  catastrophe,  which  was  then,  as  she  affirmed,  being enacted  before  her.  She  declared  with  great  emphasis  that a steamboat  was  burning  on  the  Hudson ; that  she  could  see the  name — Henry  Clay;  and  that  the  village  of  Yonkers was  also  distinctly  visible.  She  appeared  to  be  thrilled  and terrified  at  the  spectacle,  and  expressed  the  deepest  anguish on  account  of  the  loss  of  so  many  lives.  On  the  following morning  the  public  journals  contained  the  verification  of  all she  had  said,  in  the  details  of  the  mournful  disaster,  so  mysteriously foreshadowed  and  so  graphically  portrayed  at  the very  hour  of  the  fatal  occurrence."

Bridgeport, Connecticut is more than 25 miles from the closest part of the Hudson River. Wikipedia.org lists the fire on the Henry Clay as occurring at about 3 PM on July 27, 1852, with a loss of nearly 50 lives, as the ship passed near Yonkers (40 miles from Bridgeport). The details in the wikipedia.org article exactly match the details given above. 

On page 476 of this book written more than a century before the terms "near-death experience" and "out-of-body experience" became widely used, we have an account of a near-death experience that included an out-of-body experience:

"A few  months  since,  an  eminent  Presbyterian  divine  in New  York  was  borne  by  disease  to  the  very  portals  of  the invisible  world.  He  had  a distinct  consciousness  of  his  condition. Veiled  in  light,  his  spirit  rose  and  hovered  over  the body.  He  could  distinctly  see  the  wasted  form,  stretched on  the  couch  ‘beneath  him,  pale,  pulseless  and  cold,  but  his immortal  self  was  thrilled  with  inexpressible  peace  and  joy. Just  then  his  wife,  to  whom  he  was  tenderly  but  strongly attached,  called  to  him  with  the  deep  earnestness  of  that  undying love  which  can  endure  all  things  but  separation  from the  object  of  its  devotion.  The  potent  magnetism  of  that loving  heart  counterpoised  the  combined  attractions  of  the spheres,  and  even  recalled  the  unshackled  spirit  from  the Heavens  just  opening  to  receive  it.  He  returned  to  the body.  The  next  moment  a gentle  voice — calling  his  name in  tones  of  mingled  tenderness  and  grief— vibrated  on  the outward  ear,  reminding  him  that  he  was  still  a dweller  in the  earth." 

Sunday, December 19, 2021

"Ancient Aliens" Mixes Marvels, Mysteries and Misconceptions

The long-running TV series "Ancient Aliens" has long been a strange mixture of the daring, the dazzling and the dubious. On the positive side, the show often draws our attention to interesting anomalies worthy of our attention, anomalies that have too often been wrongly swept under the rug by mainstream scientists.  Also on the positive side, "Ancient Aliens" often raises objections to doubtful dogmas of academia that should indeed be questioned. On the negative side, "Ancient Aliens" often pushes its owns doubtful dogmas, along with speculations that are not very credible.

The show sometimes suggests ETs had something to do with Stonehenge

Such strengths and weaknesses were shown in a recent episode of "Ancient Aliens" entitled "The Human Experiment," one that was a weird smorgasbord of interesting journalism, unbelievable speculations, weighty considerations well-worth pondering, and untrue claims. The episode was mainly devoted to advancing an  unbelievable claim constantly repeated on the show: that humans became humans because extraterrestrials tinkered with our DNA. 

The reason why this claim is unbelievable is not because of some impossibility that extraterrestrials visited us in the past. The two main reasons why this claim is unbelievable are these:

(1) There are no conceivable modifications in DNA that can explain the physical origin of human bodies, because DNA does not specify anatomy, contrary to the mythical claims to the contrary that have often been made by scientists and science writers. DNA uses a system called the genetic code in which chemicals in DNA (called nucleotide base pairs) stand for amino acids that make up proteins. But under such a system there is only a very limited capacity for specification. DNA (and the genes that make up DNA) can only specify low-level chemical information such as  the amino acids that make up proteins, and the contents of RNA molecules. When scientists discovered the genetic code used by DNA, they only discovered an extremely limited coding scheme completely incapable of specifying complex three-dimensional structures such as the layout of a human body or the structure of an eye or the layout of the human reproductive system or even the structure of any cell.  Read the posts here, here and here for more on why DNA cannot be a specification of anatomy. In the post here you will read quotations from more than twenty biologists, chemists and doctors who say that DNA is not a blueprint or a recipe or a program or an algorithm for building a human body. 

(2) Things such as the origin of language and the origin of the human mind cannot possibly be explained by extraterrestrials tinkering with human DNA.  Because DNA does not specify anatomy, DNA changes cannot explain the physical structure of the brain. Also, the brain does not explain the human mind or the capabilities of human memory, for reasons abundantly explained in the posts of the site here.  In short, DNA does not explain brains, and brains don't explain minds. So the idea that humans got their advanced minds and language by extraterrestrials modifying our DNA is unbelievable. 

I would describe the "ancient astronaut theorists" constantly evoked on the "Ancient Aliens" program as being half-rebels or quarter-rebels. On one hand, such theorists are willing to rebel against the silly origins dogmas of academia, by pointing out that human minds and human culture appeared on the scene too quickly to be explained by any ideas of mainstream professors.  On the other hand, such ancient astronaut theorists seem to accept "hook, line and sinker" some of the least believable ideas of mainstream professors. Our ancient astronaut theorists seem to uncritically accept incorrect ideas that DNA is some "explain-it-all" molecule that can explain human minds and anatomy. It is no such thing, but merely a piece in the grand puzzle of human origins.  Such ancient astronaut theorists also seem to accept "hook, line and sinker" unwarranted claims that human minds can be explained by brains. 

In the recent "Ancient Aliens" episode on DNA, we had several misstatements about DNA.  The narrator claimed that DNA is a molecule that defines every creature on Earth. DNA is no such thing, but merely a very important chemical database used by living things.  The structure of cells is not specified by DNA, nor is the anatomy of organisms.  We had a statement by biologist Kirsten Fisher, making this give-us-the-wrong-idea  claim: "The DNA code is essentially like a language consisting of genes that confer particular traits like eye color, hair color, all these traits basically that we recognize." DNA is only a code by which nucleotides stand for amino acids, and is not "essentially like a language," because it has nothing but the tiniest vocabulary  consisting only of about 25 nouns (each an amino acid), no verbs except "stop," no adjectives, and no grammar. 

DNA has no power to specify things three-dimensional arrangements of parts the way languages do.  While DNA may be important in determining eye color and hair color, it is very false indeed to claim that it confers "all the traits basically that we recognize." DNA does not specify human anatomy or even the anatomy of cells, nor does it specify human intellectual traits such as the ability to think, consciousness, morality, the ability to form memories, the ability to recall memories,  and so forth.  For example, the traits that we have ten fingers and ten toes and two eyes and one nose and one mouth are not specified by DNA. So it is very false to claim that DNA confers "all these traits basically that we recognize." The genome is not a blueprint," says Kevin Mitchell, a geneticist and neuroscientist at Trinity College Dublin, noting "it doesn't encode some specific outcome.""DNA cannot be seen as the 'blueprint' for life," says Antony Jose, associate professor of cell biology and molecular genetics at the University of Maryland, who says, "It is at best an overlapping and potentially scrambled list of ingredients that is used differently by different cells at different times."  

We should have suspected that we were being given the wrong idea by biologist Fisher by the fact that she only gave the specific  examples of eye color and hair color as traits conferred by DNA.  When she said, "The DNA code is essentially like a language consisting of genes that confer particular traits like eye color, hair color, all these traits basically that we recognize," it sounded like some male suitor saying, "I'm so rich: I have a pencil and a small jar of coffee and every other thing a man could possibly dream of having."

We then hear another scientist (Adam Siepel) making the  also untrue statement that "in a sense DNA is a program that gets run by the computer, and the computer is a cell." No, DNA is not a program, and it lacks the essential characteristic of a computer program, which are conditional logic statements such as "if/then" statements.  The correct computer analogy for DNA is to compare to not to a program but to a primitive database -- not a modern relational database which can include logic in the form of stored procedures, but merely the simplest databases that merely have data.  Although cells are vastly more complex than molecules (way too complex to be explained by anything in DNA), cells are not computers that run programs. 

Beware of biologists using phrases such as "essentially like," "basically" and "in a sense." Alarms bells should go off in our minds when we hear such words, and we should be suspicious that at best someone is saying something that is not literally true, and that at worst someone is starting to shovel baloney. 

In the "Ancient Aliens" episode I am discussing someone claims that DNA is "essentially digital." That is untrue.  Information either is digital or is not digital, and calling something "essentially digital" is like saying someone is "essentially pregnant." When information is digital, it consists of sequences equivalent to ones and zeros, sequences such as 1010101001111100010101.  None of the information in DNA is digital. 

The "Ancient Aliens" episode unconvincingly tries to cite human genetic engineering with CRISPR as something that helps supports claims that aliens tampered with human DNA. It is suggested that "DNA knots" are evidence of extraterrestrial tampering. We have a rather ridiculous attempt to persuade us that some short slightly winding symbol found in ancient Egyptian art is a depiction of the double helix, something we are told "cannot be by chance." Someone describes the DNA double helix co-discoverer Francis Crick as someone who promoted the idea that extraterrestrial visitors were the origin of "human DNA." But in his paper on the topic, Crick merely spoke vaguely of extraterrestrials being the origin of "terrestrial organisms," and said "the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability."

We hear the very strange suggestion that humans are smarter than chimps because we have two fewer chromosomes than chimps. After a long attempt to convince us that humans arose because extraterrestrials modified our DNA, the episode went into a discussion of other topics. There was a discussion of people claiming that they were abducted by extraterrestrials,  people such as Betty Hill and Barney Hill. We hear an interesting account from a woman who claimed that her pregnancy ended when extraterrestrials extracted the growing 4-month-old child from her womb. 

The "Ancient Aliens" episode then has some noteworthy footage of blindfolded children apparently demonstrating powers of clairvoyance.  The demonstration seems persuasive, because the large completely opaque blindfolds are very solid material maybe twice as large as large sunglasses, extending way below the eyes; and the children are looking straight ahead at targets two meters away at eye level, without tilting their heads backwards (ruling out the "looked through the bottom crack of the blindfold" objection made by skeptics).  The footage is from the film "Superhuman: The Invisible Made Visible" by Caroline Cory.  

I strongly suspect that neither cheating nor faking is going on here, because of the factors mentioned above and because similar clairvoyance results by children have been very well documented in the Soviet Union and China, as discussed in my post here, entitled "EHF: Reports of Chinese Kids With Paranormal Powers."  I asked only one person from China whether she had ever heard of such reports, without any reason to think that she had. She said that she had a relative who had demonstrated such powers as a child  (including the power to see inside a closed box), and that this relative was brought to Beijing to be tested by the government.  

The fact is that we have nearly two hundred years of well-documented evidence for human clairvoyance, from all over the globe, provided by a host of reliable witnesses. The evidence stretches back all the way to the report of the French Royal Academy of Medicine issued in 1831, one finding in favor of clairvoyance. Clairvoyance has been well-documented by esteemed authorities such as Professor William Gregory, a chemistry professor at the very prestigious University of Edinburgh who documented at very great length his observations of clairvoyant subjects.  The written nineteenth century evidence and early twentieth century evidence for clairvoyance during states of hypnotism and trance is extremely abundant, and clairvoyance was well-demonstrated in a host of public exhibitions and experiments.  The fact that so many contemporary professors deny the existence of clairvoyance is one of the most outrageous modern examples of denying solid evidence, typically made by people who never studied the original source evidence (such as the cases discussed here). 

The fact that the "Ancient Aliens" episode on DNA has presented some modern evidence for clairvoyance is commendable. But in the same episode we are shown the filmmaker Caroline Cory who has filmed this evidence, participating in a panel discussion with ancient astronaut theorists. Perhaps to fit in with all of their talk about extraterrestrials tinkering with human DNA, Caroline suggests that extraterrestrials might have upgraded our DNA to give humans the power of clairvoyance.  Caroline not only suggests this idea, but says "I guarantee you" that extraterrestrials are modifying our DNA. 

This explanation makes no sense at all.  Clairvoyance and other psychic phenomena such as telepathy and near-death experiences can never be explained by anything in DNA, nor can they be explained by anything in human brains. Such phenomena can only be explained by ideas such as the hypothesis that humans have souls, or some spiritual capability that is the equivalent of having souls.  This is very probably why materialists have for so long stubbornly refused to accept almost two hundred years of very convincing evidence for clairvoyance: because they know that once you admit the existence of clairvoyance, the existence of something like a human soul is all but certain. 

There is no evidence that people who score higher on ESP tests or clairvoyance tests have different DNA than average people. There is no evidence that anyone has DNA much different from average people, with the exception of people with birth defects.  Contrary to clickbait headlines exaggerating small changes, human DNA has changed very little over the past two thousand years, with the main changes being mainly related to not-very-important things such as eye color, hair color and lactose digestion. So genome analysis does not support a claim that extraterrestrials are modifying our DNA.  

It's rather a shame that the "Ancient Aliens" show originally chose the title of "Ancient Aliens." That title is kind of a ball-and-chain that its writers are tied to, a kind of prison that limits them. It would have been better if the show had a more noncommittal title, something like perhaps "Mysterious Beginnings" or "Contrarian Theories." That way, the show could have progressed beyond its Erich von Daniken beginnings. But with the title "Ancient Aliens" the show is kind of chained to an original hypothesis, not very free to move out to more credible theorizing. Conversely, I am glad that I chose for this blog the noncommittal title of "Future and Cosmos," along with a subtitle ending with the phrase "...and other weighty topics." With such a title and subtitle I have felt free to move in whatever direction I felt was most consistent with what I have learned during years of study on a very wide variety of topics, without having to feel that I have to stay consistent with some box-me-in title. If you ever start a new blog detailing your thoughts on philosophy, politics, science or religion, I advise picking some blog title that does not box-you-in to some position you may later move away from. 

Postscript: On the Travel Channel's UFO Witness show, we have an account by one of the people claiming an alien abduction experience. We are told the account arose after "hypnotherapy." But accounts told under hypnosis are suspect, because under hypnosis subjects can be extremely suggestible. This was reported by Professor William Gregory as far back as the nineteenth century, on the page here, where he indicates that hypnotized people can be made to believe almost anything suggested.  To judge the reliability of the "abduction account," we would need to read a transcript of what the hypnotist and patient said.  Did the account of extraterrestrials arise after such an idea was suggested by the hypnotist? Or did it arise when the hypnotist acted neutrally, asking something like "Tell me about what happened on the night when you were puzzled by what happened"?

Wednesday, December 15, 2021

Our Luxury Results Debunk the Multiverse As an Explanation

Introduction: The Story of Milo and James

Let us imagine two twin brothers named Milo and James who live under extremely unusual circumstances. They both live alone on a Pacific island that is so remote that ships virtually never pass by it.  We can imagine that when the brothers were very young their rich widowed father took them to this very remote uninhabited island, and paid for construction workers to arrive and construct a very comfortable house.  Included in the house and its surrounding land are many luxuries such as electricity, solar panels, a backyard swimming pool, a solar-powered kitchen, rainfall-accumulating vats that help make possible running water inside the house, and also quite a few fishing rods and a fishing pier. We can imagine that the father also arranged for quite a few fruit trees to be planted near the house. Sadly, when the brothers were only four years old their father died while swimming, being ate by a shark who left no trace of his body.  But given all the fruit trees near their home and the convenient fishing pier and fishing rods, along with the running water, the brothers were able to survive all by themselves, alone on the very remote island. 

Let us imagine Milo and James are now fifty years old, and have no memory at all of their father or the construction of their house (because people rarely remember things happening before age five). Milo has no memory of seeing anyone other than James, and James has no memory of seeing anyone other than Milo.  They also do not know of anyone outside of their island, because their father had not yet finished constructing a TV antenna that would have allowed satellite TV reception. 

One day Milo and James have a philosophical discussion regarding the origin of their house.  It goes like this:

"A house like ours and its surroundings are so convenient that they  could not have arisen by chance," says James. "Some mysterious power or powers must have designed them."

"No, we need not believe that," says Milo. "We should believe that our house and its convenient surroundings on our island arose merely because of some very lucky random combination of atoms, without any design being involved."

"That's ridiculous!" says James. "The chance of such luck occurring would be far less than 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000."

"But we should not be surprised that mere chance would allow us to  live as we do," says Milo. "For if we did not have a house to keep us safe from cold, rainy nights and typhoons, we would not even be here. Our house was a necessity for our existence."

"Oh really?" says James.

"Yes," says Milo. "We can call this an observer selection effect.  All conscious observers would have conditions as lucky as ours, or they would not be living as conscious observers." 

Milo has committed a very bad error of reasoning that we may call Milo's Error.  There is a reason why Milo's reasoning is utterly fallacious: the fact that observers could have briefly existed under very harsh conditions very much worse than the conditions Milo enjoys, and the chance occurrence of such very harsh but observer-permitting conditions would have been more than a trillion quadrillion quintillion times more likely than the chance occurrence of the conditions that Milo enjoys. So it is very false indeed for Milo to be claiming that under a hypothesis of mere chance he should not be surprised to observe conditions as good as he has.  Under a hypothesis of mere chance it would still be fantastically unlikely that Milo would have conditions as good as he has. 

For example, there is no reason why an observer on a remote Pacific island would have needed the comfy house that Milo enjoys. Someone could have survived on such an island by sleeping at night in a hole in the ground covered by leafy branches, which would have provided barely adequate protection for years.  It would be almost infinitely more likely for mere chance to produce a mere uncomfortable sleeping hole than for mere chance to produce a comfy house.  There is also no reason why Milo needs to have the great convenience of fruit trees, fishing rods and a fishing pier on his island,  which allow him to obtain food with little effort. He could have survived for years by the laborious method of just going out into the water and catching fish with his bare hands.  Also, observers could have survived on the island without the solar power, electricity and running water that Milo enjoys.  Rain water could have been obtained by laboriously scraping off water drops from leaves whenever it rained. 

Accordingly, Milo's theory very much predicts the wrong thing. Under a theory of random chance effects producing conditions allowing observers, it would be almost infinitely more probable that Milo should find himself in conditions just barely allowing him to survive and live a short life, rather than conditions as good as the comfy conditions he enjoys, which have allowed him to live a long comfortable life.  

Cosmic Fine-Tuning, Firing Squads and a Multiverse

Just as Milo and James pondered whether their convenient surroundings could be the product of mere chance, philosophers and other thinkers have pondered whether the natural conditions enjoyed by humans could be the product of mere chance.  There are many laws of nature and fundamental constants of nature that seem to be fine-tuned or just right to allow our existence.  Using reasoning like that of Milo, some have argued that such things are purely the result of chance. They speculate about some vast collection of universes (called a multiverse), and say that in such a collection at least one universe would allow observers. When someone points out the almost infinite improbability of such luck occurring in any particular random universe,  our multiverse reasoners appeal to an "observer selection effect," telling us that we should not be surprised to find ourselves in a universe such as ours, because in only such universes could there be observers. 

Such multiverse reasoners have committed a reasoning error very much like that of Milo. To explain why that is so, I must give an explanation like that I used to explain why Milo's reasoning was fallacious.  To make such an explanation,  it is convenient if I talk about firing squads, an analogy sometimes used by multiverse reasoners. 

A multiverse reasoner will sometimes tell us that no one should be surprised if he faces the bullet volleys of a firing squad and survives to find himself in good health, on the grounds that because of an "observer selection effect" all survivors would find such a result. This is clearly an example of Milo's Error.  A careful analysis of facing of a firing squad gives us probabilities like this:

Most-likely result of facing a 12-man firing squad of well-trained soldiers armed with rifles

Instant death

Likelihood of 99.999%

Second-most-likely result

Survival, but with wounds so bad that there will be only seconds or a few minutes until death

A thousand times more likely than the third-most-likely event

Third-most- likely event

Survival, but with wounds that will cause either death within hours or permanent disability or brain damage

Very much more improbable than the second-most-likely result

Fourth-most-likely event

Survival with no wounds

Very much more improbable than the third-most-likely result

This situation is very much analogous to the situation of Milo and James. It would be thousands or millions of times more likely for chance results from a firing squad to have produced survivors just about to die than survivors who had no wounds.  So it is fallacious to say that someone surviving a firing squad without wounds should not be surprised by the results.  Similarly it would be trillions of times more likely that mere chance would have produced barely survivable conditions for Milo and James than the comfy conditions they enjoyed. 

Moreover, when multiverse reasoners claim that we should expect to find ourselves in a universe like ours, they are committing the same kind of error as Milo's Error and the bad reasoning about firing squads listed above.  The reason why is that observers could exist in barely habitable universes not allowing most of the luxuries we enjoy, and such a result would have been trillions of times more likely than observers enjoying results as good as ours. 

To help explain this point, let's look at some of the "firing squads" that our universe and our planet have survived, typically getting the best result from facing such "firing squads."  In each case I will explain why we luckily got neither the most likely result (one that would have prohibited observers), nor the second-most likely result (one that would have just barely allowed observers), but instead a very comfy third-most-likely or fourth-most-likely result (a result very much more improbable than the second-most-likely result, and vastly more improbable than the first-most-likely result).

"Firing Squad" #1: Matter and Antimatter

Scientists believe that when two very high-energy photons collide, they produce equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and that when matter collides with antimatter, it is converted into high-energy photons. Such a belief is based on what scientists have observed in particle accelerators such as the Large Hadron Collider, where particles are accelerated to near the speed of light before they collide with each other. But such conclusions about matter, antimatter and photons leads to a great mystery as to why there is any matter at all in the universe.

Let us imagine the early minutes of the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago, when the density of the universe was incredibly great. At that time the universe should have consisted of energy, matter and antimatter. The energy should have been in the form of very high energy photons that were frequently colliding with each other. All such collisions should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. So the amount of antimatter should have been exactly the same as the amount of matter. As a CERN page on this topic says, "The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe." But whenever a matter particle touched an antimatter particle, both would have been converted into photons. The eventual result should have been a universe consisting either of nothing but photons, or some matter but an equal amount of antimatter. 

A universe with nothing but photons would be inhabitable. A universe with equal amounts of matter and antimatter would be either inhabitable or at best barely habitable.  When only a tiny amount of matter comes in contact with antimatter, they are both converted to energy in a release far more destructive than a hydrogen bomb. Even if there were only small amounts of antimatter hanging around, the results would be devastating. A single person stepping on an antimatter pebble would release more energy than a hydrogen bomb. And if there were lots of antimatter in outer space, our planet would frequently get zapped by lethal rays arising from matter coming into contact with antimatter. 

For reasons that are not understood, humans have managed to escape this "firing squad" without any damage.  No one has ever been hurt by antimatter. But we don't understand why we didn't have either the most-likely result of an inhabitable universe of only photons or the second-most-likely result of a barely habitable universe with an almost-even mixture of matter and antimatter. A universe with an almost-even mixture of matter and antimatter would have so many random gigantic energy discharges all over the place that it almost certainly would not allow the existence of stable long-lasting civilizations such as ours.  Instead we got the least-likely result of a universe in which antimatter is no problem at all. 

"Firing Squad" #2: The Ratio of Positive and Negative Electric Charge

We take for granted a feature of our universe that would be enormously improbable in random universes with electric charges: the electrical neutrality of matter.  Electrical neutrality means that the total amount of positive electric charge that we observe on our planet is roughly equal to the total amount of negative charge that we observe on our planet. 

Such a balance exists because of two things:

(1) Every proton has an electric charge that is the very precise opposite of the charge on every electron (a fantastically improbable "coincidence" that is unexplained by modern science).  This seems very inherently improbable, because each proton has a mass 1836 times greater than the mass of each electron. 

(2) The number of protons is about equal to the number of electrons. 

The universe would be uninhabitable if there was not the type of balance listed above.  The chemical reactions necessary for biochemistry require a rough balance of positive and negative charge in our bodies.  Moreover, given that gravitation is a force more than a trillion trillion trillion times weaker than electromagnetism, even a slight imbalance in the ratio of positive charges and negative charges in large astronomical bodies would prevent large bodies like planets and suns from holding together by gravitation. 

By far the most likely result from this "firing squad" would be an uninhabitable universe. The second-most-likely result (vastly more likely than the result we got) is one that would have left only a barely habitable universe.  In the second-most-likely result there would be a large imbalance of positive and electric charges that might still barely allow observers, but which would be fantastically inconvenient.  There would be excesses of electric charges all over the place, meaning people would very, very often die just by stepping on a rock and being killed by its static electricity. 

Humans managed to escape this "firing squad" by getting neither the most-likely result nor the second-most-likely result, but a vastly improbable result in which electric charge imbalances kill almost no one. 

"Firing Squad" #3: The Strong Nuclear Force and Radioactivity

The two fundamental nuclear forces in our universe are the weak nuclear force (involved in radioactivity) and the strong nuclear force (which holds together the nucleus of an atom). The nucleus of atoms such as carbon consists of neutrons with no charge and protons with a positive charge. All particles with the same charge repel each other, particularly when they are very close together. So if it were not for the strong nuclear force, the nucleus of an atom such as carbon and oxygen could not exist for more than a second; the electromagnetic repulsion of the protons would cause the nucleus to fly apart.

In his book The Accidental Universe physicist Paul Davies says that if the strong nuclear force were 5 percent weaker, the deuteron (a nucleus consisting of a proton and a neutron) could not exist, making it “doubtful if stable, long-lived stars could exist at all.” He also notes that if the strong nuclear force were 2 percent stronger, a nucleus called a diproton (consisting of only two protons and no neutrons) would exist, making it doubtful that “any hydrogen would have survived beyond the hot primeval phase” near the time of the Big Bang (and also causing all kinds of problems for the existence of stars like the sun).  It is not just the strength of the strong nuclear force that is very convenient, but also its range. If the force was not so very short-ranged, it would preclude the possibility of the complex carbon molecules needed for life. 

If you reduce the strength of the strong nuclear force by a small amount, then very common atoms such as carbon and oxygen would be radioactive, because the strong nuclear force would be weak enough that protons in such atoms would occasionally fly apart from electromagnetic repulsion. If you reduce the strength by a somewhat smaller amount, atoms such as carbon and oxygen could not even exist, because the electromagnetic repulsion of protons would prevent them from ever forming. 

Cosmologist Luke Barnes states this in a recent paper:

"If the strong force were a few percent weaker, the deuteron would be unbound (Pochet et al., 1991). The first step in stellar burning would require a three-body reaction to form helium-3. This requires such extreme temperatures and densities that stable stars cannot form: anything big enough to burn is too big to be stable... Weaken the strong force by a few more percent, or increase the strength of electromagnetism, and carbon and all larger elements are unstable (Barrow & Tipler, 1986). The parameters of the standard model must walk a tight-rope in order to form stable nuclei and support stable stars."

The most likely result in a random universe would be either no strong nuclear force, or a strong nuclear force with a strength or range that would prevent the possibility of life. The second most likely result in a random universe would be a strong nuclear force that would just barely allow life or observers to exist, under very harsh circumstances.  Either the stability of stars would be greatly less or radioactivity would be vastly more common, so common that bodies would be internally radioactive, which would prevent people from living beyond about 20, and make cancer very many times more common.  We survived both the most likely result of this "firing squad," and also the second-most likely result. The result  we have is the least likely result, one which allows for biochemistry, and in which radioactivity is almost no problem for humans. 

"Firing Squad" #4: Particle Masses and the Fine Structure Constant

"In his book The Particle at the End of the Universe (page 145 to 146), Cal Tech physicist Sean Carroll says the following:

"The size of atoms...is determined by...the mass of the electron. If that mass were less, atoms would be a lot larger. .. If the mass of the electron changed just a little bit, we would have things like 'molecules' and 'chemistry', but the specific rules that we know in the real world would change in important ways...Complicated molecules like DNA or proteins or living cells would be messed up beyond repair. To bring it home: Change the mass of the electron just a little bit, and all life would instantly end."

Besides the luck involved in the electron mass having a suitable value, our universe also had great luck in regard to the neutron mass having a suitable value. Physicist Paul Davies says that if the neutron mass were .998 of its actual value, protons would decay into neutrons, and there would be no atoms at all (The Accidental Universe, page 65). Conversely, if the neutron mass were slightly greater, it would mean there could be no long-lived stars like the sun. 
Section 4.8 of the paper here discusses many different ways in which life and stable molecules and stable stars require a fine-tuning of particle masses and a fundamental constant called the fine structure constant. That section of the paper justifies these statements:

(1) By far the most likely result in a random universe would be particle masses and a fine-structure constant preventing life.  
(2) The second most likely result in a random universe would be particle masses that would allow observers, but prevent observers with long lives (because of high radioactivity) and prevent stable stars like the sun. 

What we got from this "firing squad" is the third-most-likely result, one in which we have a gloriously stable sun allowing long-lived civilizations, and also very little radioactivity. 

"Firing Squad" #5: Heavy Elements

After the Big Bang, there was only hydrogen, helium, and a little lithium and beryllium. Scientists tell us that all of the other elements were produced inside of stars or from stellar collisions or stellar explosions. Advanced life requires lots of carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen. Having a civilization requires additional elements such as iron. Iron may also be required for intelligent life to exist on planets. The scientific paper here tells us says "Life-forms that do not require iron are exceedingly rare; indeed, only two are known (Borrelia burgdorferi and Lactobacilli)." The same paper gives us geological reasons for doubting that a planet like Earth could have existed unless there was abundant iron in its core. 

Astronomers say that some of the elements originated in stars that did not blow up, and others originated in stars that did blow up in supernova explosions. A universe must meet many requirements to get all the needed elements in abundant amounts. For one thing, there has to be something like the weak nuclear force that exists in our universe, because that is needed for supernova explosions. Another thing needed are just the right nuclear resonances, which have to exist in the right way to assure the abundant production of carbon and oxygen by stars. In this paper  scientists conclude, “Thus, even with a minimal change of 0.4% in the strength of the N-N force, carbon-based life appears to be impossible, since all the stars then would produce either almost solely carbon or oxygen, but could not produce both elements.”

Below are the number of protons in the nucleus of different elements:

Hydrogen: 1 proton in nucleus

Helium: 2 protons in nucleus

Lithium: 3 protons in nucleus

Beryllium: 4 protons in nucleus

Boron: 5 protons in nucleus

Carbon: 6 protons in nucleus

Nitrogen: 7 protons in nucleus

Oxygen: 8 protons in nucleus

Phosphorus: 15 protons in nucleus

Iron: 26 protons in nucleus

Copper: 29 protons in nucleus

Gold: 79 protons

The heavier the element, the more requirements there are for its large-scale existence.  Scientists can explain the lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, beryllium and lithium) solely by appealing to the Big Bang, although their predictions about the amount of lithium are currently off the mark.  To explain the origin of carbon and oxygen, scientists evoke dying low-mass stars. To explain oxygen, scientists also currently appeal to supernova explosions (things that have many dependencies and prerequisites).  To explain iron, scientists appeal to both supernova explosions (involving very massive stars), and also exploding white dwarf stars. 

Scientists currently lack any credible explanation for the existence of elements such as gold and silver. They are currently trying to explain such elements by imagining the extremely far-fetched hypothesis of colliding neutron stars.  Since the estimated number of neutron stars in our galaxy is only about 2000, and since the chance of neutron stars colliding in a galaxy as large as ours is extremely low, this explanation fails to be credible. An alternate theory (imagining something almost as far-fetched) is way off in its predictions of gold and silver abundances, off by about 500%.   

There are very many fine-tuned dependencies all over the place when we talk about element abundances. Because of the requirement mentioned above, the most likely outcome from a random universe would be either not enough carbon for life or not enough oxygen for life. The second most-likely outcome would be only enough carbon and oxygen for life to occur only as a very rare fluke on a planet (with few organisms), and not enough iron, copper, and other very heavy elements for a technical computerized civilization such as ours to exist.  Instead against all odds we got the least-likely result of a universe in which we pretty much have all the elements a computerized technical civilization needs, in high abundances, and also essentially inexplicable luxuries such as the existence of gold and silver.  

"Firing Squad" #6: Dark Energy (aka the Cosmological Constant)

Dark energy (basically the same as the cosmological constant) is one of the great unsolved mysteries of the universe. It's not simply that we don't know enough about it. The mystery is that dark energy in our universe is so very small, even though quantum field theory suggests it should be so vasty larger. Scientists say that quantum uncertainty should cause an ordinary vacuum to be teeming with short-lived, fleeting particles called virtual particles. Those particles should give an ordinary vacuum a very high energy density. When scientists do the calculations, they come up with a number indicating that ordinary space should be filled with a vacuum energy density more than 10100 times greater (more than a million billion trillion quadrillion quintillion sextillion times greater) than the maximum value consistent with astronomical observations (a problem known as the "vacuum catastrophe"). The simplest explanation is that there is some lucky balancing by which negative contributions to the vacuum energy density cancel out positive contributions, resulting in a net value near zero. But such a lucky balancing is incredibly improbable (far more improbable than the chance that all of the money you earned in your life would match to the penny, by coincidence, all the money that some stranger spent during his life). 

If dark energy had anything like the density predicted by quantum field theory, life would be impossible, as the space between   suns and planets would be so dense that sunlight could not travel through it (and also movement around on a planet would be impossible). Although the issue is poorly studied by cosmologists, we can be all but certain that a lesser but still fairly high dark energy would have left us only a barely habitable universe.  The most likely situation by far would be dark energy preventing any observers, and the second-most likely situation would be dark energy causing a universe that was just barely habitable, without luxuries such as abundant biodiversity, long-lived observers and long-lived technical civilizations.  We escaped both the most likely and second-most likely results from this "firing squad," and enjoy the luxury of a universe in which dark energy causes zero problems for us. 

The Many Luxury Results We Enjoy

Let us consider some ways in which our human and earthly results are vastly better than merely what is needed to have observers. They include the following:

(1) An observer might exist without any planet at all, perhaps arising on some comet or interstellar cloud or harsh moon. But on Earth observers enjoy a beautiful planet to explore. 

(2) In a barely habitable universe, an observer might exist as some fluke occurrence,  with zero or only a handful of other observers known to him, without any society surrounding him. But on Earth observers have a fascinating society all around them to enjoy. 

(3) In a barely habitable universe, each observer might have an incredibly hard and painful life, wracked by problems such as stellar fluctuations, radioactivity, explosions caused by antimatter, and death or painful results caused by excess electric charges.  But most people on Earth enjoy comparatively comfortable lives. 

(4) In a barely habitable universe, all observers might be immobile, existing as organisms like trees or sponges. This is because the amount of cosmic fine-tuning luck needed for mobile observers is much greater than the amount of luck needed for immobile observers. But on Earth people have the luxury of being able to move around. In fact, nowadays (thanks to the luxury of heavy metals such as iron) people even have the luxury of being able to explore distant lands by using trains or jets. 

(5) In a barely habitable universe, conditions might be so harsh that most observers might have either ridiculously short lives or lives that do not last much beyond reproduction. But on our planet very many people live comfortably for sixty years or more after first being a mother or father. 

(6) In a barely habitable universe, it would be very unlikely that societies could exist, and if societies did exist, they would be short-lived affairs because of things such as stellar instability which would wipe out any civilization after fifty years or more of its existence. But on Earth we have societies and cultures that last for centuries or thousands of years. 

(7) In a barely habitable universe, there would be very low biodiversity on any planet, as the appearance of any new species would be fantastically unlikely. But on Earth we have gloriously  extravagant levels of biodiversity, with more than a million animal species for us to use and enjoy.  The paper here says, "Planets with Earth-like levels of biodiversity are likely to be very rare," a claim it makes based on only geological and astronomical reasons.  

(8) In a barely habitable universe, conditions would be so harsh for life that there would probably be no observers capable of communicating with each other through luxuries such as speech and language. 

(9) In a barely habitable universe, conditions would be so harsh that there would probably be no intelligent life at all, but merely very stupid observers (such as fish or reptiles or blob-like organisms) incapable of advanced thought or philosophy. 

(10) In a barely habitable universe,  it would be very unlikely that there could ever exist advanced civilizations that developed computers and something like the Internet. Harsh conditions would prevent societies from lasting long enough for the development of high technology. Moreover, a lack of metals such as iron and copper  would tend to prevent the existence of machines such as computers. 

(11) In a barely habitable universe, fundamental constants might vary from spot to spot, so that observers might find themselves in some rare little fluke spot in which the constants allowed habitability, preventing any possibility of taking long journeys. We, on the other hand, have the luxury of being able to travel around a whole habitable planet. 

Because of all of these factors, our situation is very much comparable to the situation of Milo and James described in the beginning of this post. We should not commit Milo's Error which I described at this post's beginning. An "observer selection effect" cannot at all explain the luxury results we enjoy, just as an "observer selection effect" cannot explain the luxuries that Milo and James enjoyed. Knowing the luxuries he was blessed by, it was logically right for James to have presumed that design was involved in such blessings; and it is logically right for us to presume something similar about our cosmic blessings. 

When multiverse reasoners appeal to an "observer selection effect," they are committing a fallacy of simplistic bifurcation, the error of putting everything into two categories, when more than two categories should be used.  Totally failing to consider the category of barely habitable universes that allow only observers with no luxuries like we enjoy, they speak as if a universe must either be a universe like ours or a universe excluding observers.  The same fallacy of simplistic bifurcation goes on if someone says, "My child, when you grow up, you'll either be a manual laborer, or the leader of a company." 

The diagram below helps to illustrate a much more realistic classification scheme, one involving four categories: uninhabitable universes, barely habitable universes, moderately habitable universes, and luxury-permitting universes like the one we live in. 

habitable universe

For the sake of being easy to view, the diagram is a very schematic one. Instead of consisting of multiple pixels, the right edges of each bar should more realistically have a width of only a single pixel. Because of reasons such as the reasons given above, we have every reason to suspect that barely habitable universes should be more than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more unlikely than uninhabitable universes, and that luxury-permitting universes such as ours should be billions or trillions of times more improbable than barely habitable universes. 

So we can now see the folly of saying something like, "We could only have existed in a universe such as ours, for observers would only  exist in a such a universe."  Such a claim is only one of the many glaring errors of multiverse reasoning. Multiverse reasoning is a cesspool of bad reasoning, and some of its other errors are discussed in this post.  The reasoning errors of multiverse thinkers are some of the most egregious sins of logic humans have ever committed. 

Postscript: The diagram below does a better job of showing how rare a universe like ours would be in the set of all habitable universes. Click on the diagram to better read the small text. 

habitable universes