Sean Carroll

And if you want to say, well, the probability of it happening, there's some bottleneck, maybe the first cell, maybe some other point along the way. The probability was really, really, really, really low. OK, well, but it happened. We're in the part where it happened.

And if you want to say, well, the probability of it happening, there's some bottleneck, maybe the first cell, maybe some other point along the way. The probability was really, really, really, really low. OK, well, but it happened. We're in the part where it happened.

So either it happened because there's a single world and we just got lucky, or it happened because there are multiple worlds and there's an anthropic selection and we're going to find ourselves in the world where it could have happened. The difference between those two things makes no difference, as far as I can tell, to theories of the origin of life, etc.

So either it happened because there's a single world and we just got lucky, or it happened because there are multiple worlds and there's an anthropic selection and we're going to find ourselves in the world where it could have happened. The difference between those two things makes no difference, as far as I can tell, to theories of the origin of life, etc.

Getting lucky versus anthropic selection have all exactly the same empirical content as far as our world is concerned. So I wouldn't point to many worlds as helping that much there. It might help you, like,

Getting lucky versus anthropic selection have all exactly the same empirical content as far as our world is concerned. So I wouldn't point to many worlds as helping that much there. It might help you, like,

feel better about the fact that something unlikely happened because since we need to conditionalize on life existing, we don't need to conditionalize on other things like the mass of the Higgs boson or whatever, but we wouldn't be having this conversation if life didn't exist.

feel better about the fact that something unlikely happened because since we need to conditionalize on life existing, we don't need to conditionalize on other things like the mass of the Higgs boson or whatever, but we wouldn't be having this conversation if life didn't exist.

So if there are many, many universes, each one of which it's rare to find life, but one of them was bound to do it, that might help you feel better about the fact that we are in that world. But I don't think it really helps you in terms of investigating the details about how life came to be. There's still an empirical question. Is it easy or hard? What is the probability?

So if there are many, many universes, each one of which it's rare to find life, but one of them was bound to do it, that might help you feel better about the fact that we are in that world. But I don't think it really helps you in terms of investigating the details about how life came to be. There's still an empirical question. Is it easy or hard? What is the probability?

Many Worlds doesn't help you answer those questions. Daniel Schirmer says, if the rotation of the sun was slowed down, could that cause the orbit of the Earth to decay? I heard the Earth would get closer to the sun if the sun's rotation slowed down. How much closer would the Earth get to the sun if the sun was spinning half as fast as it currently does?

Many Worlds doesn't help you answer those questions. Daniel Schirmer says, if the rotation of the sun was slowed down, could that cause the orbit of the Earth to decay? I heard the Earth would get closer to the sun if the sun's rotation slowed down. How much closer would the Earth get to the sun if the sun was spinning half as fast as it currently does?

So you hopefully will not be surprised to hear I have no idea how much closer the Earth would get to the sun if the sun was spinning half as fast as it currently does. I'm not even at all sure that it's true. that the orbit of the Earth would decay in a noticeably different way if the Sun will slow down. Or I guess what I should say is I'm not sure whether it would decay at all.

So you hopefully will not be surprised to hear I have no idea how much closer the Earth would get to the sun if the sun was spinning half as fast as it currently does. I'm not even at all sure that it's true. that the orbit of the Earth would decay in a noticeably different way if the Sun will slow down. Or I guess what I should say is I'm not sure whether it would decay at all.

It does decay because of various effects that are much, much more important than the rotation of the Sun, like the orbit of Jupiter, is more important than the rotation of the Sun for things like this. And the orbit of Jupiter doesn't matter that much. So the only thing I really have to say about this question is any of these effects are going to be really, really, really small.

It does decay because of various effects that are much, much more important than the rotation of the Sun, like the orbit of Jupiter, is more important than the rotation of the Sun for things like this. And the orbit of Jupiter doesn't matter that much. So the only thing I really have to say about this question is any of these effects are going to be really, really, really small.

Isaac Newton did pretty darn well in understanding the orbits of planets and things by treating everything like a point particle that wasn't rotating at all. So that must be a pretty good approximation. Craig Stevens says, I learned in college that photons may be absorbed by atoms if they have the right energy and move a valence electron from one energy level to a higher one.

Isaac Newton did pretty darn well in understanding the orbits of planets and things by treating everything like a point particle that wasn't rotating at all. So that must be a pretty good approximation. Craig Stevens says, I learned in college that photons may be absorbed by atoms if they have the right energy and move a valence electron from one energy level to a higher one.

Then when the energy, sorry, when the electron moves back down to the lower level, another photon is emitted. Is there a way that photons can be absorbed and not re-emitted? Or are they constantly bouncing from one atom to another or moving through empty space forever? I think that the answer is no, there is not such a way. But I mean, of course, it depends on what you're allowing yourself to do.

Then when the energy, sorry, when the electron moves back down to the lower level, another photon is emitted. Is there a way that photons can be absorbed and not re-emitted? Or are they constantly bouncing from one atom to another or moving through empty space forever? I think that the answer is no, there is not such a way. But I mean, of course, it depends on what you're allowing yourself to do.